JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: christians4jews on October 12, 2010, 03:02:58 PM
-
Evolution Genesis
Sun before earth Earth before sun
Dry land before sea Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth Earth before stars
Earth at same time as planets Earth before other planets
Sea creatures before land plants Land plants before sea creatures
Earthworms before starfish Starfish before earthworms
Land animals before trees Trees before land animals
Death before man Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man Man before thorns and thistles
TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer) Man before TB pathogens and cancer
Reptiles before birds Birds before reptiles
Land mammals before whales Whales before land animals
Land mammals before bats Bats before land animals
Dinosaurs before birds Birds before dinosaurs
Insects before flowering plants Flowering plants before insects
Sun before plants Plants before sun
Dinosaurs before dolphins olphins before dinosaurs
Land reptiles before pterosaurs Pterosaurs before land reptiles
this was from a creation site i would rather not link, but shows how you cannot believe in the bible and evolution, its impossible.
Now i hav no problem as there is zero evidence for origins of species, ziltch, nothing. BUT THIS IS for the bible beleivers that also believe in the religion of evolution.
-
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.
PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.
-
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.
PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.
so what is the symbolic teaching the bible getting things in the wrong order(if you believe in the religion of evolution) :rolleyes:
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
its a religion and a branch off of atheism to discredit god. Weak jews and christians who are fearful of the bible ALWAYS being correct are submissive towards it. BUt at the end of the day it faith.
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link, no observable evidence, no retestable evidence, nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
cue "oo but in science we try and seek the truth, they may be errors on the way but we get there in the end" baloney. Im fed up with a dumb theory being pushed in schools and my potential kids having to learn that crap. And it is crap.
So as atheism is a religion and a faith, so is evolution.
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
...................
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link, no observable evidence, no retestable evidence, nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
:P :P ;D ;D ;D
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
...................
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link, no observable evidence, no retestable evidence, nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
............
im sorry linking me wikipedia articles on bones in the ground is not going to sway me that we are decendants of apes, and fish turned into reptiles and chickens truned into dinosaurs...
Please dont insult my inteligence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
:P :P ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.
PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.
It's amazing to me how often I agree with exactly what you say, zelhar. Great points.
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
...................
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link, no observable evidence, no retestable evidence, nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
............
im sorry linking me wikipedia articles on bones in the ground is not going to sway me that we are decendants of apes, and fish turned into reptiles and chickens truned into dinosaurs...
Please dont insult my inteligence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
:P :P ;D ;D ;D
Dude, get real. You keep calling fossils and remains "bones in the ground." Can we please use common sense and put two and two together here. When there are bones in the ground, how do you think they got there? Isn't it logical to think those bones were once the skeleton of a living organism before it died and decomposed and then covered over by the natural process that happen in the earth? Wait, I'll answer for you. Yes, that is logical. To say there are just a bunch of bones in the ground for no apparent reason and that those bones never belonged to living organisms is NOT logical and is actually akin to a conspiracy theory - only the conspiracy is by G-d to place bones in the ground for no reason and to deceive all the scientists.
Get real or else there's nothing to talk about with you. You asked for evidence of transitional species. Someone linked to evidence that's been dug up showing remains of transitional species. You then say that that's not evidence because it's just a pile of bones. That is insane. You are not refuting the premises of evolution, you are refuting a straw-man that you created. 'Wanna' know how I know? Because you are implying that "transitional" species have to be crawling around on the earth RIGHT NOW, alive, for there to ever have been transitional species. But evolution does not assert this, even if there were transitionals walking around. So you refute a straw-man instead of engage the actual arguments of scientists. The problem with your logic is that NO ONE KNOWS SOMETHING IS TRANSITIONAL UNTIL AFTER THE FACT WHEN IT CHANGES INTO SOMETHING ELSE! And after-the-fact, it has left a fossil for us to examine and analyze. Oh, but you don't "believe in" fossils. What you are exhibiting here is plain nuttiness.
-
This is yet another case of someone being opposed to evolution (or what he considers evolution even if his knowledge or understanding of it is nowhere near accurate) based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all. They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand. The scientists are convinced of COMMON ORIGIN for many reasons. A suitable argument against them is not "oh they just don't realize bones are just bones" or any other religious craziness. You can try to refute them scientifically - in that, you will fail.
So if you oppose on religious grounds, Just Say So. Do not pretend your views are science or that the scientists are not adhering to science (or that evolution is a 'religion') when they collectively agree on common origin. (Even some prominent Intelligent Design proponents - the honest ones - agree on the premise of common origin - they simply argue on the mechanisms by which the species evolved).
-
c4j,
One minor complaint with your timeline...
According to Jewish tradition the 'light' which Hashem created on the first day was not the sun, nor a star, it was primordial divine light which was put away in a container shortly after it was created. This primordial light is not physical light so to say that there was light on earth before the sun is not correct from the Jewish perspective {as I understand it}...
http://www.ravkooktorah.org/BREISHIT_67.htm
"Ohr Ha-Ganuz"
The very first act of creation recorded in Genesis is the creation of light. "And G-d said, 'There shall be light'" (Gen. 1:3). But what kind of light was this?
It cannot be the light that we are familiar with, the light emanating from the sun and the stars — the heavenly bodies were created much later, on the fourth day. The Sages called this primordial light "Ohr Ha-Ganuz", the Hidden Light. What is the nature of this special illumination introduced at the beginning of creation?
The Sages taught (Shemot Rabbah 15:22) that certain topics mentioned only cryptically in the Torah were later elucidated by David in the book of Psalms. For example, the Torah relates that G-d created light after creating heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1-3). In Psalms, however, the order is reversed. There the verse indicates that G-d first created the light and only afterward the heavens:
"He wrapped Himself in light like a garment, and spread out the heavens like a curtain." (104:3)
This concept, however, is difficult. The verse in Psalms does not explain the Torah's account, but rather contradicts it, switching the order of creation as set down in Genesis. Furthermore, what does it mean that G-d 'wrapped Himself in light like a garment'?
Chomer and Tzurah
The philosophers distinguished between chomer, the raw material, and tzurah, the inner form or purpose. For example, wood is a raw material (chomer) that may be used in many different functional objects. Once it is designated for use as a table, the wood also has tzurah, having acquired a particular purpose.
At the very beginning of Creation, there was only chomer. G-d created many varied elements, but they were without tzurah, lacking function and purpose. This state of disorder and dissonance is referred to as darkness — "darkness on the face of the depths" (Gen 1:2). The Torah calls this unstable primeval stage Tohu and Bohu, meaning that it was chaotic and empty of form.
Then G-d created the "Ohr Ha-Ganuz". This special light played a critical role in creation. Just as regular light allows us to see and relate to our surroundings, the Hidden Light enabled the different elements of creation to relate to one another. It dispelled the initial state of darkness when all objects were isolated, unable to relate and connect to each other.
To use the terminology of the philosophers, the illumination of the first day stamped a functional tzurah on the material chomer of creation. Through this special light, the universe's myriad objects gained purpose and function, and were able to work together towards a common goal.
To Wear Light
The Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 3:4) writes that "G-d wrapped Himself in (the light) like a garment, and illuminated the splendor of His glory from one end of the world to the other." What does it mean for G-d to 'wear light'? This phrase indicates that the light took on G-d's qualities of oneness and unity, just as a garment takes on the shape of the one wearing it. When 'G-d wrapped Himself in light,' He introduced an underlying unity into all aspects of creation, "from one end of the world to the other."
In summary, the description in Psalms does not contradict the account in Genesis. At first, G-d created heaven and earth in an isolated state, as chomer without form and purpose. This was the unstable state of Tohu and Bohu described in Genesis, when the diverse elements of creation existed in chaotic darkness, lacking an underlying unity.
Then G-d said, "There shall be light." G-d bound the matter together with a common purpose through the creation of the special "Ohr Ha-Ganuz". With this unifying light, the universe was stabilized and completed. G-d first 'wrapped Himself in the light,' giving the light His trait of oneness. Only afterwards did He 'spread out the heavens,' as the formation of a stable universe took place after creating the Hidden Light. The psalm continues to describe the stability of the world after the creation of light: "He founded the earth on its foundations, so that it will never falter" (104:5).
(adapted from Midbar Shur pp. 95-96)
Rashi makes this comment on this line:
And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated: Here too, we need the words of the Aggadah: He saw it that it was not proper for the wicked to use it; so He separated it for the righteous in the future. According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows: He saw it that it was good, and it was unseemly that it [light] and darkness should serve in confusion; so He established for this one its boundary by day, and for that one its boundary by night.
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
its a religion and a branch off of atheism to discredit G-d. Weak jews and christians who are fearful of the bible ALWAYS being correct are submissive towards it. BUt at the end of the day it faith.
I came to accept evolution gradually after weighing the evidence. I had a lot of resistance to the idea. However, now I realize that there is so much more beauty in an old earth/universe and a branching tree of life than in a simple as-is creation.
Imagine the breathtakingly beautiful landscapes that existed for eons, before humans spoiled them. Supercontinents coming together, separating, coming together again, separating, canyons forming, mountains pushing up, seas barren, then bursting with life. Land barren, then filled with life. Glaciers forming, retreating, forming, retreating. Landscapes shifting from grassland, to forest, back again. Oceans turning into deserts, etc. Different eons were almost like different worlds, filled with different types of life, different environments.
It really shows God's hand as a wonderful artist, if you want to be poetic about it. Imagine seeing something that's rather like a fish but beginning to look a bit like a tetrapod, swimming around in an ancient wetland, climbing up on something in the water with its lobe fins, to gaze at the world above, a world which its descendants will dominate, and fill many, many roles. This creature's descendants branching out, to become antelope and lion, dog and cat, lizard and crow, and beings which will write books, establish religions, and fly into space, all from this one, rudimentary tetrapod. Of course, this fish would have no idea of this grand future. It would be more interested in finding food and a mate. Yet, its Creator knew this, by looking and watching it all unfold, just as planned.
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." -Charles Darwin
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link,
Acanthostega is one of my favorites:
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html
no observable evidence,
Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
no retestable evidence,
Evolution makes certain basic predictions, and no credible evidence has been foudn that contradicts those.
nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
Let's head you off at the pass, just pick one and find the answer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
cue "oo but in science we try and seek the truth, they may be errors on the way but we get there in the end" baloney. Im fed up with a dumb theory being pushed in schools and my potential kids having to learn that crap. And it is crap.
You could always home school your kids. I think that's probably best anyway for conservative parents.
So as atheism is a religion and a faith, so is evolution.
Atheism is a lack of religion and a lack of faith. Very few atheists have a positive belief "there is no God", most of them simply have a lack of belief in God (and yes there is a difference).
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
its a religion and a branch off of atheism to discredit G-d. Weak jews and christians who are fearful of the bible ALWAYS being correct are submissive towards it. BUt at the end of the day it faith.
I came to accept evolution gradually after weighing the evidence. I had a lot of resistance to the idea. However, now I realize that there is so much more beauty in an old earth/universe and a branching tree of life than in a simple as-is creation.
Imagine the breathtakingly beautiful landscapes that existed for eons, before humans spoiled them. Supercontinents coming together, separating, coming together again, separating, canyons forming, mountains pushing up, seas barren, then bursting with life. Land barren, then filled with life. Glaciers forming, retreating, forming, retreating. Landscapes shifting from grassland, to forest, back again. Oceans turning into deserts, etc. Different eons were almost like different worlds, filled with different types of life, different environments.
It really shows G-d's hand as a wonderful artist, if you want to be poetic about it. Imagine seeing something that's rather like a fish but beginning to look a bit like a tetrapod, swimming around in an ancient wetland, climbing up on something in the water with its lobe fins, to gaze at the world above, a world which its descendants will dominate, and fill many, many roles. This creature's descendants branching out, to become antelope and lion, dog and cat, lizard and crow, and beings which will write books, establish religions, and fly into space, all from this one, rudimentary tetrapod. Of course, this fish would have no idea of this grand future. It would be more interested in finding food and a mate. Yet, its Creator knew this, by looking and watching it all unfold, just as planned.
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." -Charles Darwin
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link,
Acanthostega is one of my favorites:
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html
no observable evidence,
Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
no retestable evidence,
Evolution makes certain basic predictions, and no credible evidence has been foudn that contradicts those.
nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
Let's head you off at the pass, just pick one and find the answer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
cue "oo but in science we try and seek the truth, they may be errors on the way but we get there in the end" baloney. Im fed up with a dumb theory being pushed in schools and my potential kids having to learn that crap. And it is crap.
You could always home school your kids. I think that's probably best anyway for conservative parents.
So as atheism is a religion and a faith, so is evolution.
Atheism is a lack of religion and a lack of faith. Very few atheists have a positive belief "there is no G-d", most of them simply have a lack of belief in G-d (and yes there is a difference).
im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.
Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.
-
im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.
Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.
More obfuscation.
You're still going to insist on denying that bones in the ground once belonged to living organisms? Sorry, but that precludes intelligent conversation. Evolution is not a religion. You may be intelligent, but you're not showing it in this thread.
-
.............
im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.
Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.
well, lets start with he fact that we can know the ratios of stable isotopes to radioactive isotopes in dead bio-matter using recently died bio-matter. than we take the fossils and see how much radioactive isotopes they have. after that, we use the rate of decay of the isotopes we are using to predict when the organism died.
-
.............
im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.
Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.
well, lets start with he fact that we can know the ratios of stable isotopes to radioactive isotopes in dead bio-matter using recently died bio-matter. than we take the fossils and see how much radioactive isotopes they have. after that, we use the rate of decay of the isotopes we are using to predict when the organism died.
And it is true that radio dating has been shown to be unreliable..
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: May 31, 1990
Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.
It is too soon to know whether the discovery will seriously upset the estimated dates of events like the arrival of human beings in the Western Hemisphere, scientists said. But it is already clear that the carbon method of dating will have to be recalibrated and corrected in some cases.
Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample. In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said.
http://www.varchive.org/C.E./c14.htm
The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating
Offering in 1952 his new radiocarbon method for calculating the age of organic material (the time interval since the plant or the animal died), W. F. Libby clearly saw the limitations of the method and the conditions under which his theoretical figures would be valid:
A. Of the three reservoirs of radiocarbon on earth—the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the hydrosphere, the richest is the last—the oceans with the seas. The correctness of the method depends greatly on the condition that in the last 40 or 50 thousand years the quantity of water in the hydrosphere (and carbon diluted in it) has not substantially changed. :
B. The method depends also on the condition that during the same period of time the influx of cosmic rays or energy particles coming from the stars and the sun has not suffered substantial variations.
To check on the method before applying it on various historical and paleontological material, Libby chose material of Egyptian archaeology, under the assumption that no other historical material from over 2,000 years ago is so secure as to its absolute dating. When objects of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom of Egypt yielded carbon dates that appeared roughly comparable with the historical dates, Libby made his method known.
.
.
.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm
Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29).
-
im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.
I repeat:
Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
If you're not going to read the answers, you might as well not ask questions.
-
.............
im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.
Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.
well, lets start with he fact that we can know the ratios of stable isotopes to radioactive isotopes in dead bio-matter using recently died bio-matter. than we take the fossils and see how much radioactive isotopes they have. after that, we use the rate of decay of the isotopes we are using to predict when the organism died.
And it is true that radio dating has been shown to be unreliable..
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: May 31, 1990
Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.
It is too soon to know whether the discovery will seriously upset the estimated dates of events like the arrival of human beings in the Western Hemisphere, scientists said. But it is already clear that the carbon method of dating will have to be recalibrated and corrected in some cases.
Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample. In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said.
http://www.varchive.org/C.E./c14.htm
The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating
Offering in 1952 his new radiocarbon method for calculating the age of organic material (the time interval since the plant or the animal died), W. F. Libby clearly saw the limitations of the method and the conditions under which his theoretical figures would be valid:
A. Of the three reservoirs of radiocarbon on earth—the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the hydrosphere, the richest is the last—the oceans with the seas. The correctness of the method depends greatly on the condition that in the last 40 or 50 thousand years the quantity of water in the hydrosphere (and carbon diluted in it) has not substantially changed. :
B. The method depends also on the condition that during the same period of time the influx of cosmic rays or energy particles coming from the stars and the sun has not suffered substantial variations.
To check on the method before applying it on various historical and paleontological material, Libby chose material of Egyptian archaeology, under the assumption that no other historical material from over 2,000 years ago is so secure as to its absolute dating. When objects of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom of Egypt yielded carbon dates that appeared roughly comparable with the historical dates, Libby made his method known.
.
.
.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm
Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29).
carbon-14 dating's accuracy depends on the fossil, if a fossil is too old for C-14, we move to a different element.
-
Each dating method has a range of time it works best for.
-
This does not cover the theory of evolution, but it pretty interesting regarding the actual time element of the timeline in question. I was considering buying one of this man's books sometime in the future [getting to the root of Bereshit is not high on my 'to do' list, but its on there somewhere.].
http://www.aish.com/print/?contentID=48951136§ion=/ci/sam
Age of the Universe
by Dr. Gerald Schroeder
According to a possible reading of ancient commentators' description of God and nature, the world may be simultaneously young and old.
One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubbell telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.
Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators’ description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.
In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, it's interesting to look historically at trends in knowledge, because absolute proofs are not forthcoming. But what is available is to look at how science has changed its picture of the world, relative to the unchanging picture of the Torah. (I refuse to use modern Biblical commentary because it already knows modern science, and is always influenced by that knowledge. The trend becomes to bend the Bible to match the science.)
So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists.
This ancient commentary was finalized long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubbell or any other modern scientific data influencing these concepts.
A universe with a beginning.
In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology -- the deep physics of understanding the universe -- was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American -- the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, but we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."
After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.
That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.
It all starts from Rosh Hashana.
How long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, 5700-plus years, or was it the 15 billions of years that's accepted by the scientific community?
The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. These six days are significant as well.
Now where do we make the zero point? On Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, upon blowing the shofar, the following sentence is said: "Hayom Harat Olam -- today is the birthday of the world."
This verse might imply that Rosh Hashana commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana commemorate the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. We start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam.
We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.
That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, brings this information. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate.
Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? Because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time.
Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children! Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.
Looking deeper into the text.
In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches in trying to understand science vis-a-vis the Bible, are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. At Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.
The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that God couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days for an infinitely powerful God? No problem.
So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn't because they were trying to apologize away what they'd seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there's information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.
The idea of looking for a deeper meaning in Torah is no different than looking for deeper meaning in science. Just as we look for the deeper readings in science to learn the working of nature, so too we need to look for the deeper readings in Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 25:11 alluded to this. “A word well spoken is like apples of Gold in a silver dish.” Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed interprets this proverb: The silver dish is the literal text of the Torah, as seen from a distance. The apples of gold are the secrets held within the silver dish of the Torah Text. Thousands of years ago we learned that there are subtleties in the Text that expand the meaning way beyond its simple reading. It's those subtleties I want to see.
Natural history and human history.
There are early Jewish sources that tell us that the Bible’s calendar is in two-parts (even predating Leviticus Rabba which goes back almost 1500 years and says it explicitly). In the closing speech that Moses makes to the people, he says if you want to see the fingerprint of God in the universe, "consider the days of old, the years of the many generations" (Deut. 32:7) Nachmanides, in the name of Kabbalah, says, "Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts -- 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?' Because, 'Consider the days of old' is the Six Days of Genesis. 'The years of the many generations' is all the time from Adam forward."
Moses says you can see God's fingerprint on the universe in one of two ways. Look at the phenomenon of the Six Days, and the development of life in the universe which is mind-boggling. Or if that doesn't impress you, then just consider society from Adam forward -- the phenomenon of human history. Either way, you will find the imprint of God.
I recently met in Jerusalem with Professor Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winning physicist. We were talking science, and as the conversation went on, I said, "What about spirituality, Leon?" And he said to me, "Schroeder, I'll talk science with you, but as far as spirituality, speak to the people across the street, the theologians." But then he continued, and he said, "But I do find something spooky about the people of Israel coming back to the Land of Israel."
Interesting. The first part of Moses' statement, "Consider the days of old" - about the Six Days of Genesis - that didn't impress Prof. Lederman. But the "Years of the many generations" - human history - that impressed him. Prof. Lederman found nothing spooky about the Eskimos eating fish at the Arctic circle. And he found nothing spooky about Greeks eating Musika in Athens. But he finds something real spooky about Jews eating falafel on Jaffa Street. Because it shouldn't have happened. It doesn't make sense historically that the Jews would come back to the Land of Israel. Yet that's what happened.
And that's one of the functions of the Jewish People in the world. To act as a demonstration. We just want people in the world to understand that there is some monkey business going on with history that makes it not all just random. That there's some direction to the flow of history. And the world has seen it through us. It's not by chance that Israel is on the front page of the New York Times more than anyone else.
What is a "day?"
Let's jump back to the Six Days of Genesis. First of all, we now know that when the Biblical calendar says 5700-plus years, we must add to that "plus six days."
A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. My 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?" So I told her to look in Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "One thousand years in Your (God's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." Perhaps time is different from the perspective of King David, than it is from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps time is different.
The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word -- "choshech" -- means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.
Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe.
Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.
But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? There is a purpose for the sun appearing only on Day Four, so that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.
Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" -- but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet -- the root of "erev" -- is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" -- "boker" -- is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.
The Torah wants us to be amazed by this flow, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.
The creation of time.
Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative.
Nachmanides explains that on Day One, time was created. That's a phenomenal insight. Time was created. You can't grab time. You don't even see it. You can see space, you can see matter, you can feel energy, you can see light energy. I understand a creation there. But the creation of time? Eight hundred years ago, Nachmanides attained this insight from the Torah's use of the phrase, "Day One." And that's exactly what Einstein taught us in the Laws of Relativity: that there was a creation, not just of space and matter, but of time itself.
Einstein's Law of Relativity.
Looking back in time, a scientist will view the universe as being 15 billion years old. But what is the Bible's view of time? Maybe it sees time differently. And that makes a big difference. Albert Einstein taught us that Big Bang cosmology brings not just space and matter into existence, but that time is part of the nitty gritty. Time is a dimension. Time is affected by your view of time. How you see time depends on where you're viewing it. A minute on the moon goes faster than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the sun goes slower. Time on the sun is actually stretched out so that if you could put a clock on the sun, it would tick more slowly. It's a small difference, but it's measurable and measured.
The flow of time varies one location to another location. Hence the term: the law of relativity.
If you could ripen oranges on the Sun, they would take longer to ripen. Why? Because time goes more slowly. Would you feel it going more slowly? No, because your biology would be part of the system. If you were living on the Sun, your heart would beat more slowly. Wherever you are, your biology is in synch with the local time. And a minute or an hour where ever you are is exactly a minute or an hour.
If you could look from one system to another, you would see time very differently. Because depending on factors like gravity and velocity, you will perceive time in a way that is very different. The flow of time varies one location to another location. Hence the term: the law of relativity.
Here's an example: One evening we were sitting around the dinner table, and my 11-year-old daughter asked, "How you could have dinosaurs? How you could have billions of years scientifically - and thousands of years Biblically at the same time? So I told her to imagine a planet where time is so stretched out that while we live out two years on Earth, only three minutes will go by on that planet. Now, those places actually exist, they are observed. It would be hard to live there with their conditions, and you couldn't get to them either, but in mental experiments you can do it. Two years are going to go by on Earth, three minutes are going to go by on the planet. So my daughter says, "Great! Send me to the planet. I'll spend three minutes there. I'll do two years worth of homework. I'll come back home in three minutes, and no more homework for two years."
Nice try. Assuming she was age 11 when she left, and her friends were 11. She spends three minutes on the planet and then comes home. (The travel time takes no time.) How old is she when she gets back? Eleven years and 3 minutes. And her friends are 13. Because she lived out 3 minutes while we lived out 2 years. Her friends aged from 11 years to 13 years, while she's 11 years and 3 minutes.
Had she looked down on Earth from that planet, her perception of Earth time would be that everybody was moving very quickly because in one of her minutes, hundreds of thousands of our minutes would pass. Whereas if we looked up, she'd be moving very slowly.
But which is correct? Is it three years? Or three minutes? The answer is both. They're both happening at the same time. That's the legacy of Albert Einstein. It so happens there literally billions of locations in the universe, where if you could put a clock at that location, it would tick so slowly, that from our perspective (if we could last that long) 15 billion years would go by... but the clock at that remote location would tick out six days.
Time travel and the Big Bang.
But how does this help to explain the Bible? Because anyway the Talmud and Rashi and Nahmanides (that is the kabala) all say that Six Days of Genesis were six regular 24-hour periods not longer than our work week!
Let's look a bit deeper. The classical Jewish sources say that before the beginning, we don't really know what there is. We can't tell what predates the universe. The Midrash asks the question: Why does the Bible begin with the letter Beit? Because Beit (which is written like a backwards C) is closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction. Hence we can't know what comes before -- only after. The first letter is a Beit - closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction.
Nachmanides expands the statement. He says that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" -- all the ages and all the secrets of the world.
Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. The speck is all there was. Anything else was God. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" -- very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance -- so thin that it has no essence -- turned into matter as we know it.
Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence -- that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts.
Science has shown that there's only one "substance-less substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold.
Nachmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy -- light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays -- all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The Biblical clock begins here.
Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One" (and not “a first day”) comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective. Einstein proved that time varies from place to place in the universe, and that time varies from perspective to perspective in the universe. The Bible says there is "evening and morning Day One".
Now if the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses and Mount Sinai -- long after Adam -- the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, hundreds of thousands of days already passed. There was a lot of time with which to compare Day One. Torah would have said "A First Day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the First Day with which to compare it. You could say on the second day, "what happened on the first day." But as Nahmanides pointed out, you could not say on the first day, "what happened on the first day" because "first" implies comparison -- an existing series. And there was no existing series. Day One was all there was.
Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there were six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, How old is the universe? Six Days. We'll just take time up until Adam. Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is approximately 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in on earth. That's Einstein's view of relativity. But what would those billions of years be as perceived from near the beginning looking forward?
The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time.
Imagine in your mind going back billions of years ago to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light, and every second it's going to pulse. Every second --- pulse. Pulse. Pulse. It shoots the light out, and then billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish, and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light is imprinted (printing information on light is called fiber optics - sending information by light), "I'm sending you a pulse every second." And then a second goes by and the next pulse is sent.
Light travels 300 million meters per second. So the two light pulses are separated by 300 million meters at the beginning. Now they travel through space for billions of years, and they're going to reach the Earth billions of years later. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. That's the cosmology of the universe. And that does not mean it's expanding into an empty space outside the universe. There's only the universe. There is no space outside the universe. The universe expands by its own space stretching. So as these pulses go through billions of years of traveling, the universe and space are stretching. As space is stretching, what's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart.
Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we say, "Wow - a pulse!" And written on it is "I'm sending you a pulse every second." You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive another second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because depending on how much time this pulse of light has traveled through space, will determine the amount of stretching of space between the pulses. That's standard astronomy.
15 billion or six days?
Today, we look back in time. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small -- billions of times smaller -- the Torah says six days. They both may be correct.
What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning when stable matter formed from the light (the energy, the electromagnetic radiation) of the creation) and time today is a million million, that is a trillion fold extension. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. It is a unit-less ratio. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe. In astronomy, the term is “red shift.” Red shift in observed astronomical data is standard.
The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.
Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3300 years ago.
The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step.
Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.
(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)
The calculations come out to be as follows:
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years.
The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years.
The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?
But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
-
I don't know about you guys, but I think that if man was created by means of something like evolution, that would be a much more intelligent and clever way for Hashem to make us than, "poof" with a magic wand.
I think KWRBT's post awhile back from what Rabbi Cook wrote was very good.
Either way, Gd exists and He masters the universe.
And one other thing, pointless to have a dialogue proving scientific facts or theories to someone who takes things literally from from Bible. The stories of creation is not meant to be taken literally in every instance and is a very deep spiritual story.
-
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.
PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.
The Bible does not have two different creation accounts, it has a creation account followed by further details that tie Adam in with the Garden of Eden. The idea of 2 creation accounts comes from German G-d-haters who analyzed the Bible with the assumption that it is not from G-d and developed a source theory that says the Torah is composed from a bunch of different sources, sort of like evolutionists work from the assumption that there is no G-d and must come up with an explanation for our existence that excludes G-d. There is no reason for a Jew to accept a German account of how the Torah came to be.
This is most definately true, there is not 2 accounts of creation... The second mention of creation is specific to the creation of man and womankind.
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
Evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism.
I would say that many atheists probably accept evolution, but that's sort of by default, considering that they don't have religious objections to it, and it's the prevailing scientific theory right now. Atheism just means without theism, without a belief in God or gods.
It's moral teachings come from the Bible--it's just the opposite of what the Bible teaches.
That's a real stretch considering that they don't believe in the Bible. Of course, without God's moral guidance as revealed through the Bible, they are more likely to take positions that are opposite to what the Bible teaches. Many atheists I spoke to seemed like fairly decent people though, but that could be because they were still culturally influenced by the Bible.
Its places of worship are universities, where they hold regular celebrations of Darwin and atheist conferences involving "scientists" who are supposedly unbiased,
No scientist is completely unbiased, but the scientific method and peer review help a lot in combatting that.
Universities are full of liberals, and atheists, but they are hardly part of a religion. Most of the liberals at universities have made a decision to have as little to do with religion as possible, or if they do follow one, it's usually some wishy washy new age crap.
and its spiritual leaders are the atheist scientists at the forefront who basically keep unfounded theories going to make sure the atheists' backs are covered from a "logical" perspective such as Richard Dawkins--he is supposedly a scientist but most of his website is dedicated to atheist philosophy.
I respect Dawkins in his scientific work. I've seen some of his lectures on youtube and read some of his writing and much of it is quite good. However he is an extreme left winger and seems to have a real resentment of religion. When he gets off the topic of Biology and starts talking about politics or social philosophy, he sounds kind of crazy. He sees religion as being in fundamental contradiction to science, because it relies on faith instead of observable facts. I happen to disagree with him on that. However he's about the least religious man you could possibly mention.
-
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.
PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.
The Bible does not have two different creation accounts, it has a creation account followed by further details that tie Adam in with the Garden of Eden. The idea of 2 creation accounts comes from German G-d-haters who analyzed the Bible with the assumption that it is not from G-d and developed a source theory that says the Torah is composed from a bunch of different sources, sort of like evolutionists work from the assumption that there is no G-d and must come up with an explanation for our existence that excludes G-d. There is no reason for a Jew to accept a German account of how the Torah came to be.
Rav Soloveitchik refers to Adam I and Adam II.
Anyone can look and see that the "details" differ from the original outline set out in Chapter 1. It appears that there are multiple accounts, from the same G-d, written in the same document. What's wrong with that? The mistake of those Germans was in saying it wasn't written by G-d. Why conflate their mistake with all of what they spoke about. They are simply drawing the wrong conclusion from the facts. (or to be more accurate, they actually started with the incorrect conclusion and then read the facts into it - in addition to whatever theory they wove). But facts are facts.
-
based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all. They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand.
This is exactly how atheists work.
No, this is how scientists work. Important distinction.
My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments. I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate! But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions. I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not). I myself clearly have theological convictions. So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?
-
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.
PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.
The Bible does not have two different creation accounts, it has a creation account followed by further details that tie Adam in with the Garden of Eden. The idea of 2 creation accounts comes from German G-d-haters who analyzed the Bible with the assumption that it is not from G-d and developed a source theory that says the Torah is composed from a bunch of different sources, sort of like evolutionists work from the assumption that there is no G-d and must come up with an explanation for our existence that excludes G-d. There is no reason for a Jew to accept a German account of how the Torah came to be.
Rav Soloveitchik refers to Adam I and Adam II.
Anyone can look and see that the "details" differ from the original outline set out in Chapter 1. It appears that there are multiple accounts, from the same G-d, written in the same document. What's wrong with that? The mistake of those Germans was in saying it wasn't written by G-d. Why conflate their mistake with all of what they spoke about. They are simply drawing the wrong conclusion from the facts. But facts are facts.
There are no details in the account that "differ" from the outline in chapter 1 when taken in context. There is 1 account written by 1 G-d. Just because some rabbi says otherwise doesn't mean anything. You can find a rabbi to support any opinion. For example, there are rabbis who believe in Kabbaloney.
Rav Soloveitchik is "some rabbi?"
Do you realize that in his day he had the respect and admiration of all the great "haredi" gedolim and that he was considered a chacham despite what some nuts might claim today? How dare you flippantly refer to him in this manner.
But aside from that, the point is not that since "one rabbi" said something it's therefore true and undeniable. The real point is that first off, there are probably many more rabbis who would and/or have said it (and my rabbi agrees with Rav Soloveitchik that there are two accounts of creation BY ONE GOD WHO WROTE ONE TEXT WITH BOTH ACCOUNTS INCLUDED FOR A REASON - but the fact that Rav Soloveitchik himself said it shows that there's something to this view - he wouldn't say it without a basis. You are trying to claim that the ONLY religious point of view is that Creation 1 and 2 are not two accounts but one total account - well obviously not all agree with you. Pointing out Rav Soloveitchik shows that to accept that approach is certainly within Judaism. It's certainly an acceptable view. It seems YOU are using non-Jewish interpretations of the Bible to exclude a valid approach which you don't like.
It seems to me that where you err is that you conflate all the views of the german bible researchers as one unitary approach and then try to "pasul" (disqualify) that approach as non-Jewish. Do you realize how many traditional Jewish questions on the Chumash which were asked by the classical medieval commentators are also asked by these same german god-deniers and subsequent bible scholars and critics? They repeat many of the questions chazal and rabbis considered. They answer them in different ways because of their mistaken assumptions. So why is the question itself now pasul (disqualified)!? (Depending on the case at hand,) it isn't.
-
based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all. They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand.
This is exactly how atheists work.
No, this is how scientists work. Important distinction.
My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments. I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate! But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions. I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not). I myself clearly have theological convictions. So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?
So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all? That's what I just said. I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.
What?
I was saying that c4J was presenting theological convictions as scientific objection, and you accused my comment of being "how atheists work"
So I clarified what I meant by my comment.
Science is proved through scientific arguments, NOT theological convictions or magical ideas.
-
Can I ask why if Bereshith chapters 1 and 2 have disagreement with each other, therefore it's written by more than one person?
In my opinion, there are two accounts of Bereshith and both written by a single author - Moshe - in his received prophecy from God.
You are tying the german philosophical assumption to the question when it has no place here.
-
The Germans I'm talking about are the ones who created the documentary hypothesis. If the German G-d-haters and rabbis who don't accept the creation accounts would only take the scriptures in context then there wouldn't be problems like this. Anyone can read for themselves and see this. I would be interested to know what this "reason" is for the "differing" creation accounts. Adam I and Adam II? Please! The nonsense some people try to pass off as spirituality.
We really need to be clear about the terms being used here. I'm not talking about reform so-called rabbis. Get that out of your head. I'm talking about believing rabbis who certainly do accept the creation accounts. So stop equating them with german bible critics! I KNOW THAT GERMAN BIBLE CRITICS INVENTED THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. Was that unclear due to anything I wrote in the previous post? I'm not sure why you say to me some of the things you say.
"I would be interested to know what this "reason" is for the "differing" creation accounts."
It certainly is interesting and I suggest you read up on his writings. I'm not going to write a one-line summary here to over-simplify it and have you flippantly label it nonsense because of the way I present it. Unfortunately though, without ever having considered it, you're already labeling it nonsense. That's a real tragedy and a big mistake.
You should read "Lonely Man of Faith" where the idea is explored.
To be clear, once again, when I say there are two accounts of creation, I DO NOT MEAN that there were 2 "source texts" or two authors or two tales that got combined by an editor. I mean that God intended for 2 views of maaseh bereshith to be incorporated in His Torah and this was deliberate, like everything else in the Torah, to teach us.
-
based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all. They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand.
This is exactly how atheists work.
No, this is how scientists work. Important distinction.
My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments. I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate! But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions. I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not). I myself clearly have theological convictions. So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?
So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all? That's what I just said. I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.
What?
I was saying that c4J was presenting theological convictions as scientific objection, and you accused my comment of being "how atheists work"
So I clarified what I meant by my comment.
Science is proved through scientific arguments, NOT theological convictions or magical ideas.
I quoted your comment about what creationists do and said it was how atheists work. Then you said it was how scientists work, so according to you, scientists work like creationists. I say they have religious convictions but they are atheistic.
Then there was a misunderstanding. Please do not misrepresent what I'm saying.
When I said "that's how scientists work" - I was saying so with regards to my approach which I was calling for, in contrast to c4J's approach which I was criticizing. I then thought you were accusing me of speaking like an atheist, so I tried to clarify why I wrote what I wrote. It does not make logical sense that I would criticize c4J's approach and then apply his approach to scientists. I was specifically saying that science does not work in this manner!
To clarify, I thought (I guess I misinterpreted) that you were saying MY line of reasoning (the one I'm advocating FOR, not against) was that employed by atheists. So I corrected that and said I'm calling for the approach of scientists when dealing with science, NOT the approach of theologians or religious convictions because that is not how science is proven.
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
Evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism. It's moral teachings come from the Bible--it's just the opposite of what the Bible teaches. Its places of worship are universities, where they hold regular celebrations of Darwin and atheist conferences involving "scientists" who are supposedly unbiased, and its spiritual leaders are the atheist scientists at the forefront who basically keep unfounded theories going to make sure the atheists' backs are covered from a "logical" perspective such as Richard Dawkins--he is supposedly a scientist but most of his website is dedicated to atheist philosophy.
Have you ever actually been in a university?
I mean this is some kind of fantasy you've got going here...
-
I quoted your comment about what creationists do and said it was how atheists work. Then you said it was how scientists work, so according to you, scientists work like creationists. I say they have religious convictions but they are atheistic.
Wrong. I never said the part in bold, nor was that intended.
I was defending my rejection of c4j's approach by saying that in doing so, I'm doing so as a scientist would - from the science perspective - I was certainly not saying c4J's approach is that of a scientist, that's the exact opposite of what I was saying. Did you even read what I said? When you said it was how atheists work, I thought that was an accusation against me for my attitude of rejecting c4j's approach as something not valid for scientific analysis. So when I said scientists do it, I meant adopting my attitude, not the one I was criticizing. Hope that clarifies.
-
A reading of the plain text shows that there are not 2 accounts of ma'ase bereshit, and I believe the reason you would accept this one rabbi's opinion on it is the same reason you would accept rabbis that accept evolution--in order to feel less self-conscious about your beliefs in modern society, instead of Heaven forbid reading scripture and believing in it.
Another comment I need to make on this statement of yours.
Once again you are assuming the worst in people and disparaging for no reason. You have assumed that my ideas are false and therefore I can't possibly adhere to them and be a believer. But these are ideas other believers also share. The fact that you never considered them or that you never thought they were valid or consistent with religious belief does not make them wrong or irreligious! You are making a false dichotomy here that by interpreting a certain way, I am disbelieving it. A different interpretation does not mean I don't believe, it means I have a brain and use it and go with what's compelling to me, like any other person should. Disbelieving would be if someone said the Torah wasn't true or some jewish cabal wrote it. I don't share views like that, so why do you ascribe them to me?
Btw, I believe what I believe based on evidence and investigation not because "modern society thinks so" - I could not care less what "modern society thinks." And certainly modern society DOES NOT believe that the Torah was given to the Jews on Mount Sinai, and yet I DO believe that. So don't give me this baloney about imposing modern societal beliefs onto scripture. It sounds like you're afraid of certain ideas that go outside the box you're used to or that you haven't considered before. I think that's tragic, but you're entitled to believe as you like - Just don't make unfair accusations against me or dishonest statements. And don't call ideas invalid just because you never considered their validity or you thought otherwise.
And in c4J's case, I'm saying don't make the dishonest case that religious convictions are scientific arguments when they aren't.
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
Evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism. It's moral teachings come from the Bible--it's just the opposite of what the Bible teaches. Its places of worship are universities, where they hold regular celebrations of Darwin and atheist conferences involving "scientists" who are supposedly unbiased, and its spiritual leaders are the atheist scientists at the forefront who basically keep unfounded theories going to make sure the atheists' backs are covered from a "logical" perspective such as Richard Dawkins--he is supposedly a scientist but most of his website is dedicated to atheist philosophy.
Have you ever actually been in a university?
I mean this is some kind of fantasy you've got going here...
Yes I've been to a university, and you see people out there supporting "Darwin Day" and at the same time "G-d off the dollar". And this was like 10 or so years ago, just think what kind of atheist shrines modern universities must be now.
I never once "celebrated" Darwin (or any scientist) during my time in University and I worked in a research lab on top of my regular curriculum which was a science major.
-
based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all. They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand.
This is exactly how atheists work.
No, this is how scientists work. Important distinction.
My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments. I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate! But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions. I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not). I myself clearly have theological convictions. So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?
So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all? That's what I just said. I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.
What?
I was saying that c4J was presenting theological convictions as scientific objection, and you accused my comment of being "how atheists work"
So I clarified what I meant by my comment.
Science is proved through scientific arguments, NOT theological convictions or magical ideas.
I quoted your comment about what creationists do and said it was how atheists work. Then you said it was how scientists work, so according to you, scientists work like creationists. I say they have religious convictions but they are atheistic.
Then there was a misunderstanding. Please do not misrepresent what I'm saying.
When I said "that's how scientists work" - I was saying so with regards to my approach which I was calling for, in contrast to c4J's approach which I was criticizing. I then thought you were accusing me of speaking like an atheist, so I tried to clarify why I wrote what I wrote. It does not make logical sense that I would criticize c4J's approach and then apply his approach to scientists. I was specifically saying that science does not work in this manner!
To clarify, I thought (I guess I misinterpreted) that you were saying MY line of reasoning (the one I'm advocating FOR, not against) was that employed by atheists. So I corrected that and said I'm calling for the approach of scientists when dealing with science, NOT the approach of theologians or religious convictions because that is not how science is proven.
I just thought it was funny how you accused creationists of doing exactly what atheists do.
I never accused "creationists" in general of doing anything.
Please read more carefully. I was refuting the arguments that c4j was making, and I referred to him specifically and I was rejecting a non-scientific approach which he is trying to attach to science or determine scientific fact with.
If you think "atheists" do that - that's a generalization - it's not really relevant but congrats. Personally, I don't think you can label all people in any group like that.
-
I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater because that would imply there is something valid about the 2 creation accounts theory.
1. What exactly is NOT valid about that? Is there something wrong with it? Please enunciate precisely what you find so egregious about an interpretation of 2 creation accounts and cite whatever relevant halachoth or Jewish sources you can as a basis to your opinion.
2. Rav Soloveitchik gives credence to two different accounts of man in the 2 accounts of creation written by God. I mean you want to throw eggs at him I guess, but what if I find more rabbis who agreed with that premise and also thought there's a basis in scripture to say so? Specifically my rabbi also agreed to this premise, but maybe I can find famous ones and historical sources too. Are you going to throw egg at them too? And what justifies that you do so to Rav Soloveitchik?
The only reason that idea is widespread today is because of the Germans, not because of one rabbi who came to a similar conclusion.
So what? What's the relevance of how popular the idea is or how it became widespread?
Who are the rishonim that asked this question? Did the rishonim believe overwhelmingly in the two creation theory? I doubt it.
I don't know, but I was referring to OTHER QUESTIONS asked by bible critics. There certainly are issues addressed by both sides and with very differing conclusions (since the critics start with mistaken assumptions and premises and then read everything into those premises - the rabbis start with the correct, Jewish premises and read into those). Do you really deny that? Or have you not looked into it? If so, I assure you that that is the case.
There is no difference in the creation order because Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.
Well let's see, you've just had to qualify the differences that actually do exist, and the way in which you do so is pretty weak and doesn't even make sense IMO. Are you saying God created again in the garden of eden? If so, why did He have to create everything twice?
-
based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all. They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand.
This is exactly how atheists work.
No, this is how scientists work. Important distinction.
My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments. I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate! But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions. I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not). I myself clearly have theological convictions. So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?
So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all? That's what I just said. I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.
What?
I was saying that c4J was presenting theological convictions as scientific objection, and you accused my comment of being "how atheists work"
So I clarified what I meant by my comment.
Science is proved through scientific arguments, NOT theological convictions or magical ideas.
I quoted your comment about what creationists do and said it was how atheists work. Then you said it was how scientists work, so according to you, scientists work like creationists. I say they have religious convictions but they are atheistic.
Then there was a misunderstanding. Please do not misrepresent what I'm saying.
When I said "that's how scientists work" - I was saying so with regards to my approach which I was calling for, in contrast to c4J's approach which I was criticizing. I then thought you were accusing me of speaking like an atheist, so I tried to clarify why I wrote what I wrote. It does not make logical sense that I would criticize c4J's approach and then apply his approach to scientists. I was specifically saying that science does not work in this manner!
To clarify, I thought (I guess I misinterpreted) that you were saying MY line of reasoning (the one I'm advocating FOR, not against) was that employed by atheists. So I corrected that and said I'm calling for the approach of scientists when dealing with science, NOT the approach of theologians or religious convictions because that is not how science is proven.
I just thought it was funny how you accused creationists of doing exactly what atheists do.
I never accused "creationists" in general of doing anything.
Please read more carefully. I was refuting the arguments that c4j was making, and I referred to him specifically and I was rejecting a non-scientific approach which he is trying to attach to science or determine scientific fact with.
If you think "atheists" do that - that's a generalization - it's not really relevant but congrats. Personally, I don't think you can label all people in any group like that.
Ok then it's funny how you accused c4j of doing exactly what atheists do.
Why is that funny?
I'm not really interested in what atheists do in this context.
What are you implying with this? If it's not to accuse either myself or c4j of being atheist, please tell me the point of your comment.
-
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
Evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism. It's moral teachings come from the Bible--it's just the opposite of what the Bible teaches. Its places of worship are universities, where they hold regular celebrations of Darwin and atheist conferences involving "scientists" who are supposedly unbiased, and its spiritual leaders are the atheist scientists at the forefront who basically keep unfounded theories going to make sure the atheists' backs are covered from a "logical" perspective such as Richard Dawkins--he is supposedly a scientist but most of his website is dedicated to atheist philosophy.
Have you ever actually been in a university?
I mean this is some kind of fantasy you've got going here...
Yes I've been to a university, and you see people out there supporting "Darwin Day" and at the same time "G-d off the dollar". And this was like 10 or so years ago, just think what kind of atheist shrines modern universities must be now.
I never once "celebrated" Darwin (or any scientist) during my time in University and I worked in a research lab on top of my regular curriculum which was a science major.
I was talking about what happens at universities in general, not what you personally did.
I never saw a Darwin celebration at my university and I was there for 4 years. None of my friends, the majority of which were science majors, celebrated Darwin, while I was in university. I think you are picking out some ridiculous things that certain atheists do and then painting that as if that defines all of academia or all scholars or all scientists. This is frankly ridiculous.
-
That's because you were already in the classrooms being indoctrinated, you didn't need to be recruited.
::) Recruited to what? To class?
Plus just because you didn't see any of those particular movements doesn't mean they don't happen. Everyone knows that universities are hotbeds of liberalism, which stems from atheism, and adheres to evolution as a religious tenet. Why do you seem surprised that there was Darwin Day and G-d off the dollar being promoted? You can see videos of atheist conferences on ZooTube at universities with speakers from the top of the scientific community.
???
Did I say that it never happened? Did I say I was surprised? You continue to misrepresent what I'm saying! You should know that this is incredibly irritating.
Now for the important quote of myself - I think you are picking out some ridiculous things that certain atheists do and then painting that as if that defines all of academia or all scholars or all scientists. This is frankly ridiculous.
That these things happened does not "discredit science."
It's amazing to me that you even cite articles in the Torah section by prominent ID proponents as if you are open to science but challenge certain conclusions (like the authors of these articles do). But it is clear that you are not open to science. You are constantly trying to discredit it for an assortment of irrelevant reasons like the university being a hotbed of liberalism, or "some people you know doing a darwin celebration so therefore science is a religion." This is extremely nutty.
You also imply that the "evil university" is just a brainwashing factory and that somehow this is relevant to science and therefore science is a religion. Well, howcome I wasn't brainwashed? How come I wasn't brainwashed by liberalism at my university to be pro-arab and hate Israel (God forbid)? Howcome while I was on campus I was fighting against the "Pro-Palestine" group?
-
There is no difference in the creation order because Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.
Well let's see, you've just had to qualify the differences that actually do exist, and the way in which you do so is pretty weak and doesn't even make sense IMO. Are you saying G-d created again in the garden of eden? If so, why did He have to create everything twice?
The 2 creation stories theory is not valid because it does not follow the plain reading of the text. I've already said that Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation. That's the difference. There's no contradiction there or basis to believe in a second creation account. You said the order is different, which it is not.
A difference, chapter 2, verse 5
"Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil."
That clearly contradicts the plain text of what we were told about the order in Chapter 1. Sorry if that's uncomfortable for you, you shouldn't stop being a believer, but that's reality.
It has nothing to do with halacha, this is a plain reading of the text. I would need to cite halacha if I was going to claim that a Torah law should be followed a certain way. I don't need halacha to know how to read though. The relevance of the popularity of the German theory is that most Jews who believe in it have been influenced by these Germans, not the one rabbi who might have had a similar conclusion. This is not a good trend.
Yeah, that's a terrible trend, but it would be great if Jews WERE influenced by "this rabbi" Rabbi Soloveitchik and his conclusions, and not germans and their incorrect conclusions. And there are many religious Jews who were influenced by "this rabbi."
-
And I remember specifically that Rashi comments on that verse that there was no man to pray for rain, and that's the significance and connection of the two end parts of the sentence. Not only was there no rain and therefore no trees, but the last part of the sentence tells us why - there was no man to till the soil - the man whose job it is to pray for rain, so that rain falls and the trees then grow!
-
There is no difference in the creation order because Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.
Well let's see, you've just had to qualify the differences that actually do exist, and the way in which you do so is pretty weak and doesn't even make sense IMO. Are you saying G-d created again in the garden of eden? If so, why did He have to create everything twice?
The 2 creation stories theory is not valid because it does not follow the plain reading of the text. I've already said that Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation. That's the difference. There's no contradiction there or basis to believe in a second creation account. You said the order is different, which it is not.
A difference, chapter 2, verse 5
"Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil."
That clearly contradicts the plain text of what we were told about the order in Chapter 1. Sorry if that's uncomfortable for you, you shouldn't stop being a believer, but that's reality.
It has nothing to do with halacha, this is a plain reading of the text. I would need to cite halacha if I was going to claim that a Torah law should be followed a certain way. I don't need halacha to know how to read though. The relevance of the popularity of the German theory is that most Jews who believe in it have been influenced by these Germans, not the one rabbi who might have had a similar conclusion. This is not a good trend.
Yeah, that's a terrible trend, but it would be great if Jews WERE influenced by "this rabbi" Rabbi Soloveitchik and his conclusions, and not germans and their incorrect conclusions. And there are many religious Jews who were influenced by "this rabbi."
KWRBT,
I don't know if your not aware but that is not a contradiction.
Hashem created all the vegetables and plant life on the third day, but it did not sprout above the ground until man was created on the sixth day. That is not a contradiction.
This is obvious when you read the Rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=7781&p=2&showrashi=true
5. Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil.
was yet on the earth: Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים This verse proves this, as well as another verse (Exod. 9:30):“ כִּי טֶרֶם תִּירְאוּן, You will not yet fear.” This verse too should be explained to mean that [no tree] was yet on the earth (Targum Onkelos). When the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day, before man was created, no herb of the field had yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written:“Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because He had not caused it to rain, because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]
-
And I remember specifically that Rashi comments on that verse that there was no man to pray for rain, and that's the significance and connection of the two end parts of the sentence. Not only was there no rain and therefore no trees, but the last part of the sentence tells us why - there was no man to till the soil - the man whose job it is to pray for rain, so that rain falls and the trees then grow!
oh, sorry... I see you recalled the Rashi... Good!
-
There is no difference in the creation order because Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation.
Well let's see, you've just had to qualify the differences that actually do exist, and the way in which you do so is pretty weak and doesn't even make sense IMO. Are you saying G-d created again in the garden of eden? If so, why did He have to create everything twice?
The 2 creation stories theory is not valid because it does not follow the plain reading of the text. I've already said that Genesis 2 is talking about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1 is talking about creation. That's the difference. There's no contradiction there or basis to believe in a second creation account. You said the order is different, which it is not.
A difference, chapter 2, verse 5
"Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil."
That clearly contradicts the plain text of what we were told about the order in Chapter 1. Sorry if that's uncomfortable for you, you shouldn't stop being a believer, but that's reality.
It has nothing to do with halacha, this is a plain reading of the text. I would need to cite halacha if I was going to claim that a Torah law should be followed a certain way. I don't need halacha to know how to read though. The relevance of the popularity of the German theory is that most Jews who believe in it have been influenced by these Germans, not the one rabbi who might have had a similar conclusion. This is not a good trend.
Yeah, that's a terrible trend, but it would be great if Jews WERE influenced by "this rabbi" Rabbi Soloveitchik and his conclusions, and not germans and their incorrect conclusions. And there are many religious Jews who were influenced by "this rabbi."
KWRBT,
I don't know if your not aware but that is not a contradiction.
Hashem created all the vegetables and plant life on the third day, but it did not sprout above the ground until man was created on the sixth day. That is not a contradiction.
This is obvious when you read the Rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=7781&p=2&showrashi=true
5. Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil.
was yet on the earth: Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים This verse proves this, as well as another verse (Exod. 9:30):“ כִּי טֶרֶם תִּירְאוּן, You will not yet fear.” This verse too should be explained to mean that [no tree] was yet on the earth (Targum Onkelos). When the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day, before man was created, no herb of the field had yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written:“Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because He had not caused it to rain, because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]
Right but just on plain meaning - first account = 3rd day - way before man
second account = 6th day, after man.
This begs the question, why the difference? Obviously it's meant to teach something and there are lots of answers. I think chazal and rashi and rishonim are answering this very question.
Also I do kind of question the framework of this particular answer because what does it mean to "create" if not having a physical manifestation of the particular thing? I mean to say, if they did not actually sprout out of the ground yet, what sense does it make to say He created them then (until that point finally occurs). But I think that all such discussions ultimately center on the fact that the maaseh bereshith are not meant in the literal sense in terms of an order and timeline, but are certainly meant to teach man the deep spiritual insights and spiritual concepts embedded literally into the world at God's creation.
-
christian4jews started this thread by seemingly finding contradictions between the current theory of evolution and creation.
As an introduction, his views are also held by some rabbis and are legitimate.
However, most if not all his questions fall away once you remove, one questionable premise that he had.
christian4jews believes that each of the objects of the 6 days of creation were created separately, during the 6 days of creation, each on its respective day.
The view however, of many Rabbis is that everything was created in the first instance of creation Breishit/Genesis 1:1. In the 6 days [which may not have been 24 hour days, based on Tehillim/Psalms90:4, for scholars see also Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Vayailech #2 ] of creation all that was involved was restructuring of the existing materials to make them suitable for the world as we know it.
By properly interpreting the bible you can say these restructuring periods do parallel the views held by evolutionists.
What do I mean by properly interpreting the bible. christian4jews for example, assumed that the Hebrew word עוף "Oaf" of Genesis 1:20 means only birds, where if you look how the Bible defines the term elsewhere it will include in reality any flying creature and not just what we call birds.
Prof. Nathan Aviezer in his book "In the Beginning...Biblical Creation and Science" is an example of one person who tries to make the biblical creation account fit the the modern scientific theories.
I myself have thought of additional ways to make the 2 schools of thought go together, but I am not willing yet to put my explanations into writing.
-
Wow this thread has grown long !
So I want to clear something- I accept the principle of natural selection and the theory of evolution. I also accept the science of carbon dating, geology and science in general.
Some people like Richard Dawkins basically hijack the science and turn it into a religious hatchet to "prove" their atheistic religion. Of course I don't share their sentiment and I don't think it is fair to generalize anybody who accepts the scientific reasoning supporting evolution into the Dawkins category. Also, the Nazis invented the evolution inspired junk science of "social darwinisim" but it has really nothing to do with natural science, darwin or anything sensible.
-
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.
PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.
The Bible does not have two different creation accounts, it has a creation account followed by further details that tie Adam in with the Garden of Eden. The idea of 2 creation accounts comes from German G-d-haters who analyzed the Bible with the assumption that it is not from G-d and developed a source theory that says the Torah is composed from a bunch of different sources, sort of like evolutionists work from the assumption that there is no G-d and must come up with an explanation for our existence that excludes G-d. There is no reason for a Jew to accept a German account of how the Torah came to be.
I don't subscribe to the God haters' thesis. It is true that chapter two deals mainly with the prolog to the story of Eden, yet it also seems that there is a rearrangement of the account that is given in chapter 1: It appears that adam is created before the animals, and finally Eve is created after them. Also in chapter one, God permits every fruit to be consumed, but in chapter 2, God forbids Adam from eating from the tree of knowledge.
-
Sorry I didn't answer this sooner. I was going to answer it last night, but I had to go to work. I just got home again (I work an overnight shift). I know the thread appears to have moved on, but I still respect you enough to answer you.
Atheists accept devilution (sorry, I had to use that at least once on this forum) because they have religious objections to G-d.
Very few atheists are absolutely certain in their own minds that there is no God. Most atheists are not like that, from my experience in talking with them. Most simply have a lack of belief in God, which does not require faith or belief of any kind, just a lack of faith. If you press them, most atheists will admit that they can't say for sure whether or not there is a God, but they just don't believe in it because they don't personally see any good reason to.
With that settled, atheism doesn't require that one accept evolution, because it's not a belief system, just a lack of belief (or a very particular belief, depending on whether they're a "strong" or weak" atheist).
Atheism would be just as much atheism if everything sort of spontaneously popped into existence, as-is, as long as it didn't involve God.
I think most atheists accept evolution by default, not because it's somehow considered to be part of atheism, but because it's the prevailing scientific theory, and lacking religion, they don't have a religious objection to it.
They say they have no religion to create the illusion that they are completely objective and without bias. The peer review system is flawed since they don't allow creationists to evaluate anything.
Creationists don't have anything to present. They don't target their arguments to an audience of scientists. They know they can't win there because quite frankly the evidence simply is not on their side. They target the public instead, because many, many people are uninformed about a lot of the details of science that would be relevant to evolution, and will be easily misdirected by scientific sounding jargon. Just look at one of the recent threads on here. We had a guy who believes that the earth does not move right here on the JTF forum!
It's a monopoly, kind of like the Academy Awards--you can't have a decent movie win anymore because it's just become an exclusive group of agenda-driven loons getting together and giving each other awards. The only reason some atheists are willing to get involved in new age crap is because it poses no moral challenge to them.
Creationists, especially young earth creationists, don't have a true testable model. The problem is a real scientific model has to be falsifiable, not "This is what the Bible says so that's my evidence". You don't expect a legitimate scientific journal to accept that do you?
Richard Dawkins is just as much of a religious extremist as the people he criticizes,
I think he's an anti-religious extremist. Just because I agree with him on a couple of things doesn't mean I agree with his vicious attacks on religious people. I think it's terrible. He believes that religion and science are mutually exclusive. I very much disagree with that.
and the only thing we learn from him about history is what the snake's voice in the Garden of Eden might have sounded like.
You picked up on that too? I also noticed this. He does sort of have a hissing quality to his voice. Creepy.
-
based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all. They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand.
This is exactly how atheists work.
No, this is how scientists work. Important distinction.
My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments. I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate! But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions. I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not). I myself clearly have theological convictions. So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?
So scientists work by presenting theological convictions as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all? That's what I just said. I was just saying that their theological convictions are atheism.
i agree mate. The evidence shown by these so called evolutionists on here is nothing less than terrible.
Next they will show the italian walled lizzard or bones with feathers on it with evidence.
Two things atheists and religion of evolutionists say as a debate
1) it took millions of years hence why no one saw it...
2) "oh you just dont understand evolution"
Thata there two arguements, and that is why they sack anyone against evolution. That timeline i showed is clear as day, you either believe in god, or you believe in evolution, they are not compatible im afraid.
-
i agree mate. The evidence shown by these so called evolutionists on here is nothing less than terrible.
You haven't really responded to the evidence shown to you.
Next they will show the italian walled lizzard or bones with feathers on it with evidence.
Are you talking about Archeopteryx or Microraptor, etc?
Two things atheists and religion of evolutionists say as a debate
1) it took millions of years hence why no one saw it...
Not all evolution takes that long, and besides, it's the creationists who say "you weren't there!" Scientists can look at evidence left behind to find out what happened in the past, and "see" it that way.
2) "oh you just dont understand evolution"
So if you understand evolution please explain to me what it is and how it works. Most creationists have a very distorted view of what it is.
Thata there two arguements, and that is why they sack anyone against evolution. That timeline i showed is clear as day, you either believe in G-d, or you believe in evolution, they are not compatible im afraid.
That's not how it works. I love G-d.
-
i agree mate. The evidence shown by these so called evolutionists on here is nothing less than terrible.
You haven't really responded to the evidence shown to you.
Next they will show the italian walled lizzard or bones with feathers on it with evidence.
Are you talking about Archeopteryx or Microraptor, etc?
Two things atheists and religion of evolutionists say as a debate
1) it took millions of years hence why no one saw it...
Not all evolution takes that long, and besides, it's the creationists who say "you weren't there!" Scientists can look at evidence left behind to find out what happened in the past, and "see" it that way.
2) "oh you just dont understand evolution"
So if you understand evolution please explain to me what it is and how it works. Most creationists have a very distorted view of what it is.
Thata there two arguements, and that is why they sack anyone against evolution. That timeline i showed is clear as day, you either believe in G-d, or you believe in evolution, they are not compatible im afraid.
That's not how it works. I love G-d.
im sorry ruby but i seen all of these so called mssing loinks and fossil and geometric layers etc etc. All would be laughed at in the court of law. If evolution was a murderer and you showed that to any sane judge, evolution would get off everytime and you know it.
Tell you what why dont you get chaim on here, you show him that cringingly rubbish evidence and lets see what he says. I bet you he will debunk each one in seconds. And the guys not even a scientist.
As for your explaining evolution, it should be you that explains its. Since why would i explain something that doesnt exist??
I think the challenge should be with you lot, so heres my challenge. I want you(or kahanist is right) to explain/write a timeline for idiots like me, chaim and dan or obviously dont understand it, how a single celled oganism was formed, and how it formed life as we know it. I want you in this time to explain how dna was formed, how we evolved emotions everything.
Since this is such a easy and simple science, to the point where people are getting sacked if they dont believe in it, its that obvious.
Good luck, i bet you both wont come back wih an answer.
-
im sorry ruby but i seen all of these so called mssing loinks and fossil and geometric layers etc etc. All would be laughed at in the court of law. If evolution was a murderer and you showed that to any sane judge, evolution would get off everytime and you know it.
In many cases, people can be convicted on strong enough circumstancial evidence. Evolution has a lot of direct evidence.
Tell you what why dont you get chaim on here, you show him that cringingly rubbish evidence and lets see what he says. I bet you he will debunk each one in seconds. And the guys not even a scientist.
Chaim's main beef with evolution is that it includes humans. To be honest this is a theological problem (not a scientific one). I also believe that human beings are spiritually set apart from animals. The only thing I probably disagree with him on is whether or not humans are physically related to the rest of the creation.
As for your explaining evolution, it should be you that explains its. Since why would i explain something that doesnt exist??
You say you understand it, and that saying you don't understand it is a bad argument. So I just want to know if you know what you're arguing against. Most creationists have no idea.
I think the challenge should be with you lot, so heres my challenge. I want you(or kahanist is right) to explain/write a timeline for idiots like me, chaim and dan or obviously dont understand it, how a single celled oganism was formed, and how it formed life as we know it. I want you in this time to explain how dna was formed, how we evolved emotions everything.
There are different ideas right now about how the first life might have formed. One idea that has a lot of traction is that there was free replicating genetic type materials around and cells developed as survival/reproduction machines for this material. This really has nothing to do with evolution per se. Evolution is about the diversity of life, not about how life began. It's about how life changed from that first life to everything we see today. DNA is a really complex type of self-replicator. There are less complex ones such as RNA that probably came together first. This would have happened before the first actual cellular life, so again it doesn't completely pertain to evolution (which is about the diversity of life, not its origin).
About emotions, our brains have certain processes involving brain chemicals that produce certain emotions. I'm not even sure if brain specialists understand all of it, although they know a lot more than I do. Certain chemicals can produce a "happy mood" if you take them, like ecstasy (I don't recommend this) so it's pretty well established that emotions are chemically regulated in the brain. Brains started out as being basically a bundle of nerves, like in planarians
(http://islandwood.org/kids/stream_health/Images/planarian2.jpg)
These creatures have primitive types of eyes that need that bundle of nerves to help them function.
More complex creatures needed more complex brains. Emotions would have developed along with this. Reptiles today probably have very basic emotions, such as being content, comfortable, uncomfortable, and perhaps fear. Mammals and birds have shown much more complex emotions, with humans having the most complex of all.
Since this is such a easy and simple science, to the point where people are getting sacked if they dont believe in it, its that obvious.
I don't see how you can have a chief scientist who rejects large portions of science and still call them qualified.
Good luck, i bet you both wont come back wih an answer.
I've done my best. You don't seem that interested in really reading our answers though.
-
Here is an interesting article from Aish.com on this topic:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48936977.html
Not By Chance- Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution
by Dr. Lee M. Spetner
A physicist brings a novel approach that challenges the assumptions of evolution.
(Adapted for the web by Rabbi Shmuel Silinsky)
Dr. Spetner's book, "Not By Chance", has created a stir among biologists and geneticists. It explains a new approach to evaluating evolution, and has been hailed by Professor E. Simon of Purdue University, a prominent geneticist, as "the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read."
Dr. Spetner shows that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot do what is claimed for it; the theory cannot account for the development of life from some simple beginning. It simply cannot account for the broad sweep of evolution.
What follows is a synopsis of some points in the book. For in depth understanding, read the book for yourself. You can get it at Amazon Books.
A SYNOPSIS
When prominent biologists claim that "evolution is a fact," they are stating a half-truth that means far less than what they would like the public to believe. The theory of evolution -- and it is just that, a theory -- states that the development of life is a purely natural process, driven by known mechanisms. But this is simply not true. There is no evidence that life developed, or even could have developed, by a purely natural process.
According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection. This theory says that evolution is built up by a long series of many steps. In each step many random changes occur in the hereditary storage of organisms. If one of these random changes should by chance happen to make the organism better adapted to its environment, then natural selection will
spread that change through the population. Each of these changes is said to be small, but the accumulation of a long series of them is said to account for large changes in populations adapting them to their environment. This process is assumed to work, and on the basis of that assumption, evolution is said to account for the development of all life.
On the basis of an unproven assumption, evolution is said to account for the development of all life.
Experiments have also been performed to show that the process of selection does indeed work under the right conditions. Moreover, random mutations have been observed that do improve the adaptiveness of the organism under certain conditions. From these observations, evolutionists have (unjustifiably) extrapolated to say that random mutations and natural selection can account for the development of life.
THE GLITCH IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
However, on both theoretical and experimental grounds, the broad sweep of evolution cannot be based on random mutations. On theoretical grounds, the probability is just too small for random mutations, even with the filtering of natural selections, to lead to a new species.
On experimental grounds, there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. This may seem surprising at first, but a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists shows that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it.
One of the examples where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Clearly, if random mutations could account for the evolution of life, then those mutations must have added a vast amount of information to the genetic code. From the time of the first simple organism until the present profusion of life, billions of genetic changes would have to be built up by a long series of accumulated mutations and natural selection. It follows that each of these many billions of mutations must have added information. Yet in spite of all the molecular studies that have been done on mutations, not a single one has been found that adds any genetic information! They all lose information!
NON-RANDOM EVOLUTION
There is, however, both direct and indirect evidence that some evolution has occurred. How did it occur?
It is suggested that although significant evolution cannot occur by random mutations, it could occur by non-random mutations. Non-random here means that the environment itself influences what mutations can occur. There is extensive evidence for evolution by non-random mutations -- evidence that spans life forms from bacteria through vertebrates.
No one has yet been able to point to a flaw in this basic argument. No one has so far refuted this conclusion.
No one has yet been able to point to a flaw in this basic argument, nor refuted this conclusion.
Whereas standard neo-Darwinian theory relies on point mutations that are essentially mistakes in replicating the DNA, there are other kinds of mutations that are not mistakes.
Genetic rearrangements are complex genetic changes. They are carried out with precision and are driven by sophisticated
cellular mechanisms. These mutations appear to be triggered by cues from the environment and they do not appear to be the product only of chance.
These genetic rearrangements may be part of a built-in mechanism that permits a line of organisms to adapt to a new environment. Part of the genetic program of the organism seems to be a set of genetic switches that can be triggered by the environment. These enable a heritable switch in the organism to one of a limited set of alternate forms. An interesting feature of this mechanism is that it can cause a population to adapt rapidly to a new environment.
Since "Not By Chance" has been published, biologists are beginning to acknowledge the importance of these non-random mutations in evolution. They suggest, though, that these built-in mechanisms have themselves evolved. Can this be?
Classic neo-Darwinian evolution calls for many steps, each consisting of a large number of trials whose duration is a generation. For the evolution of these built-in mechanisms one must invoke the same kind of process, but each trial would have to have a duration of millions of generations. Can this really be?
This brief synopsis gives several points mentioned in Dr Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance". For in depth understanding, read the book for yourself. You can get it at Amazon Books
-
are you serious? THAT's the plain meaning of the text?
-
Let's review from Bereshith 1, shall we?
1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
1:12 And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.
-
2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made earth and heaven."
But were the animals and man (not to mention the plants, a subject which we already covered) made on the same "day" that G-d made heaven and earth?
Certainly not according to the plain text of chapter 1.
And you refer to verse 9 "And the Lord G-d caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil."
And you suggest that the "caused to sprout" is past tense and refers back to any time in the past, but that clearly contradicts the implications of all the verses in chapter 2 leading up to verse 9! Clearly it's being implied that the plants and trees were not created (or caused to sprout forth) before adam.
It seems to me that your "plain reading of the text" isn't very literal at all. Is that not a contradiction in terms?
-
Let's review from Bereshith 1, shall we?
1:11 And G-d said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
1:12 And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and G-d saw that it was good.
1:13 And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.
I don't see mention of the bushes and grasses of the field that had not yet sprouted in Chapter 2. The types of plants that G-d caused to sprout in Genesis 1 are different from the types of plants that had not yet sprouted in the beginning of Genesis 2.
And you claim that that is a plain reading of the text?!
I mean, are you claiming that the phrase trees of the field exclude trees that are pleasant or produce fruit (and vice versa)? What kind of trees are trees of the field then?! These are multiple ways to describe trees.
-
2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made earth and heaven."
But were the animals and man (not to mention the plants, a subject which we already covered) made on the same "day" that G-d made heaven and earth?
Certainly not according to the plain text of chapter 1.
And you refer to verse 9 "And the Lord G-d caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil."
And you suggest that the "caused to sprout" is past tense and refers back to any time in the past, but that clearly contradicts the implications of all the verses in chapter 2 leading up to verse 9! Clearly it's being implied that the plants and trees were not created before adam.
It seems to me that your "plain reading of the text" isn't very literal at all. Is that not a contradiction in terms?
The beginning of 2:4 in the Torah Hebrew text is connected to the end of the previous passage which talks about the Sabbath. Day here is talking about the timeframe that G-d created heaven and earth, not that it was created all in one day. Just like in Genesis 1:1 it gives an overview.
Oh, so suddenly "day" is not literal. But when I view the same word as not literal and consider the same Hebrew word to refer to periods of time much greater than a 24-hour period and therefore conclude that the world is billions of years old, I'm selling out to science and modern society's culture. It's ok for you, but it's not ok for me. I get it.
It already stated before verse 2:9 that at least certain plants were created on the third day. Verse 9 shows that certain plants in the Garden of Eden sprouted later, without the help of man tilling the soil or rain. Nothing in chapter 2 "implies" a contradiction of chapter 1 if you just look at what it says.
No you are not looking at what it says, you are doing the following:
You begin with the premise that "Bereshith Chapter 1 and Bereshith Chapter 2 contain no contradictions and no double messages and no metaphors, and no differences"
Then, with this assumption in tow, certain aspects of Bereshith 1 and 2 then become difficult and require explanation. So you then read these difficult areas into your above stated premise even with non-literal readings if necessary to make sure that the Premise comes out true and upheld.
So as long as the non-literal reading is used to uphold "the holy premise" (why is that a premise we should assume? I'm still waiting for that explanation), then it's certainly Grade-A Kosher. But nothing else can be read non-literally unless to uphold "the premise" because the premise is the only thing that makes a non-literal reading necessary and therefore not-blasphemous.
Btw, does the necessity of a thing make it inherently not blasphemous? Or is the non-literal reading itself already not blasphemous, based on principles of what defines blasphemy/heresy, and then the non-literal reading gets used in whatever circumstances deemed necessary or appropriate?
-
Let's review from Bereshith 1, shall we?
1:11 And G-d said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
1:12 And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and G-d saw that it was good.
1:13 And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.
I don't see mention of the bushes and grasses of the field that had not yet sprouted in Chapter 2. The types of plants that G-d caused to sprout in Genesis 1 are different from the types of plants that had not yet sprouted in the beginning of Genesis 2.
And you claim that that is a plain reading of the text?!
I mean, are you claiming that the phrase trees of the field exclude trees that are pleasant or produce fruit (and vice versa)? What kind of trees are trees of the field then?! These are multiple ways to describe trees.
No, chapter 2 gets more specific. Certain types of agricultural vegetation in particular apparently had not yet sprouted, because it specifically mentions "of the field" which is not mentioned in chapter 1. It is talking about the Garden of Eden, which G-d made man to work in. Not all plants that ever lived sprouted on day 3.
So "trees of the field" cannot grow without rain, but other types of trees that give fruit can grow without rain?
Come on man, you are just grasping for straws. It's clear that you have to pull out a hundred tricks and twists in order to reconcile these two accounts and explain away the seeming differences. That in itself is proof that there are differences, and different people will explain them in different ways. You just have to accept that your own starting assumptions are not necessarily the gospel and there are different ways to answer these questions. You are giving me an interpretation and then saying that's the only way to read the plain text, and that's simply dishonest!
-
2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made earth and heaven."
But were the animals and man (not to mention the plants, a subject which we already covered) made on the same "day" that G-d made heaven and earth?
Certainly not according to the plain text of chapter 1.
And you refer to verse 9 "And the Lord G-d caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil."
And you suggest that the "caused to sprout" is past tense and refers back to any time in the past, but that clearly contradicts the implications of all the verses in chapter 2 leading up to verse 9! Clearly it's being implied that the plants and trees were not created before adam.
It seems to me that your "plain reading of the text" isn't very literal at all. Is that not a contradiction in terms?
The beginning of 2:4 in the Torah Hebrew text is connected to the end of the previous passage which talks about the Sabbath. Day here is talking about the timeframe that G-d created heaven and earth, not that it was created all in one day. Just like in Genesis 1:1 it gives an overview.
Oh, so suddenly "day" is not literal. But when I view the same word as not literal and consider the same Hebrew word to refer to periods of time much greater than a 24-hour period and therefore conclude that the world is billions of years old, I'm selling out to science and modern society's culture. It's ok for you, but it's not ok for me. I get it.
It already stated before verse 2:9 that at least certain plants were created on the third day. Verse 9 shows that certain plants in the Garden of Eden sprouted later, without the help of man tilling the soil or rain. Nothing in chapter 2 "implies" a contradiction of chapter 1 if you just look at what it says.
No you are not looking at what it says, you are doing the following:
You begin with the premise that "Bereshith Chapter 1 and Bereshith Chapter 2 contain no contradictions and no double messages and no metaphors, and no differences"
Then, with this assumption in tow, certain aspects of Bereshith 1 and 2 then become difficult and require explanation. So you then read these difficult areas into your above stated premise even with non-literal readings if necessary to make sure that the Premise comes out true and upheld.
Day is not literal here because it says "yom asot Hashem" which literally means day of G-d's making. This is much different from "yom echad" which means one day, or yom sheni which means second day, which are clearly talking about certain days and not figuratively. You could probably find more instances in the Bible where day is used like this.
I am reading very literally and taking the text seriously--you are starting with the assumption that it is 2 stories and reading in contradictions. I have backed up everything I claimed.
Anyone with human intelligence can read the verses and see differences - it doesn't require a starting assumption. Rav Soloveitchik obviously saw differences and commented on them. Rashi saw differences. Many rishonim saw differences and commented on them. It is only you who claims that not only are their answers invalid but that even posing the question isn't valid and that it requires some kind of dogmatic belief to arrive at these questions. That's silly.
-
2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made earth and heaven."
But were the animals and man (not to mention the plants, a subject which we already covered) made on the same "day" that G-d made heaven and earth?
Certainly not according to the plain text of chapter 1.
And you refer to verse 9 "And the Lord G-d caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil."
And you suggest that the "caused to sprout" is past tense and refers back to any time in the past, but that clearly contradicts the implications of all the verses in chapter 2 leading up to verse 9! Clearly it's being implied that the plants and trees were not created before adam.
It seems to me that your "plain reading of the text" isn't very literal at all. Is that not a contradiction in terms?
The beginning of 2:4 in the Torah Hebrew text is connected to the end of the previous passage which talks about the Sabbath. Day here is talking about the timeframe that G-d created heaven and earth, not that it was created all in one day. Just like in Genesis 1:1 it gives an overview.
Oh, so suddenly "day" is not literal. But when I view the same word as not literal and consider the same Hebrew word to refer to periods of time much greater than a 24-hour period and therefore conclude that the world is billions of years old, I'm selling out to science and modern society's culture. It's ok for you, but it's not ok for me. I get it.
It already stated before verse 2:9 that at least certain plants were created on the third day. Verse 9 shows that certain plants in the Garden of Eden sprouted later, without the help of man tilling the soil or rain. Nothing in chapter 2 "implies" a contradiction of chapter 1 if you just look at what it says.
No you are not looking at what it says, you are doing the following:
You begin with the premise that "Bereshith Chapter 1 and Bereshith Chapter 2 contain no contradictions and no double messages and no metaphors, and no differences"
Then, with this assumption in tow, certain aspects of Bereshith 1 and 2 then become difficult and require explanation. So you then read these difficult areas into your above stated premise even with non-literal readings if necessary to make sure that the Premise comes out true and upheld.
Day is not literal here because it says "yom asot Hashem" which literally means day of G-d's making. This is much different from "yom echad" which means one day, or yom sheni which means second day, which are clearly talking about certain days and not figuratively. You could probably find more instances in the Bible where day is used like this.
I am reading very literally and taking the text seriously--you are starting with the assumption that it is 2 stories and reading in contradictions. I have backed up everything I claimed.
And no you are not reading very literally, you are making twists and turns in order to fit your presumption about the text.
If Day one or 2nd day or 3rd day can't be non-literal, then so too Day of G-d's making can't be non-literal. (but why not? Is there some reason why they can't be non-literal?) If Day of G-d's creating can be non-literal, then there is no rational reason that I can't possibly say Day 1 or 2nd day etc are non-literal.
I really don't understand why you think your allegorical reading, the same one you are making, is somehow assur or heretical or blasphemous or whatever else when done on a different portion of the text, a chapter earlier. Is there some basis for that rigid refusal to employ your own methods of interpretation? Or you simply don't like it since it's not your own interpretation?
You don't have to like it, but don't claim it's reformism or some kind of biblical criticism - because that's a bastardization of what's being done and it's also a distortion.
-
You have only given me one rabbi with this perspective, and you have given me no reason to believe there is anything substantially spiritual you can take away from the idea of 2 creation accounts. The reason you believe in it is because you read the Bible through the lense of modern trends so you feel more comfortable about your so-called belief in G-d.
This is a lie.
Read Lonely man of faith. I already explained why I'm not going to simplify the ideas to a soundbite or one-word sentence to have you ridicule them like an infantile shmuck.
I had an entire shiur on Sefer Bereshith for weeks when I was in yeshiva and we discussed many aspects of this. But you are already assuming the interpretation is forbidden and heretical. At that point, why should it matter if anything of value comes out of the interpretation. You will only belittle it and desecrate yourself in front of G-d because you are convinced that "this cannot be." Like I said, I'm not going to be a party to that. Go read the book and learn something instead of carrying on like a fool.
"about your so-called belief in G-d. "
What gives you the right to say this [edited]?
You have resorted to ad hominem attack
-
The phrase "day of G-d's making" is similar to saying the "day of Israel's suffering" or something in the sense that it has another meaning in contrast to specific days that are numbered. It is saying at the time that G-d made heaven and earth. It even says later in Exodus that G-d created the world in 6 days. So you are actually the one doing the distortions. Think about it, people who don't even believe in the Bible shouldn't be giving instructions on how to read it.
What kind of baloney is this? Why do you ascribe to me views that aren't mine? Because you don't like what I say, you want to paint me as an atheist because it's easier to attack the "enemy atheist" than it is to actually prove wrong what I'm saying. {edited}You have resorted to ad hominem attack, Dan
If I don't believe in the Bible I really don't know why I'm keeping the commandments. In fact, I wouldn't do so if I didn't believe! So drop this meaningless ad hominem {edited}
-
Btw dan ben noah, why don't you take a look at the Torah section and see the latest thread I made.
Are you going to sling mud at Rav Hirsh too?
At this point it wouldn't even surprise me. Your behavior is disgusting.
-
You have only given me one rabbi with this perspective, and you have given me no reason to believe there is anything substantially spiritual you can take away from the idea of 2 creation accounts. The reason you believe in it is because you read the Bible through the lense of modern trends so you feel more comfortable about your so-called belief in G-d.
This is a lie.
Read Lonely man of faith. I already explained why I'm not going to simplify the ideas to a soundbite or one-word sentence to have you ridicule them like an infantile shmuck.
I had an entire shiur on Sefer Bereshith for weeks when I was in yeshiva and we discussed many aspects of this. But you are already assuming the interpretation is forbidden and heretical. At that point, why should it matter if anything of value comes out of the interpretation. You will only belittle it and desecrate yourself in front of G-d because you are convinced that "this cannot be." Like I said, I'm not going to be a party to that. Go read the book and learn something instead of carrying on like a fool.
"about your so-called belief in G-d. "
What gives you the right to say this you condescending little worm? You are really [censored] me off now.
You are not giving it out because you know that it's a bunch of nonsense. Adam I and Adam II are not more credible than a plain meaning reading of the Bible.
It's kind of like Muslims say they believe in one G-d, but their view of Him is totally different than how G-d actually revealed Himself. If you observe Shabbat, you are missing the whole point of the commemoration, which is clearly stated that it's because G-d created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Now Rav Soloveitchik is a muslim? Wtf is wrong with you?
-
בס''ד
Guys! What is going on here?
Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.
-
בס''ד
We have to learn to debate and disagree without taking differences of opinion personally.
I have not even read this whole argument but certainly we can explain without insulting.
-
בס''ד
Guys! What is going on here?
Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.
Chaim, don't give me this.
I respect Dan Ben Noah. He does not return the favor. He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write. I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me. I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.
In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic. These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads. But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts. I'm certainly not going to take this crap.
-
didn't Rav Kook believe in evolution?
-
didn't Rav Kook believe in evolution?
And take a look at the Torah thread - Rav Hirsh didn't "believe in it" (it was brand new as a theory without much evidence behind it) yet he explained how it wouldn't be a challenge to Judaism if it was true. But some people think they know more than Rav Hirsh, Rav Kook, and Rav Soloveitchik combined.
-
בס''ד
Guys! What is going on here?
Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.
Chaim, don't give me this.
I respect Dan Ben Noah. He does not return the favor. He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write. I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me. I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.
In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic. These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads. But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts. I'm certainly not going to take this crap.
בס''ד
I didn't read the whole argument here but I don't see this. He is simply disagreeing with you. Can't we have vigorous and healthy arguments here between friends?
-
בס''ד
Guys! What is going on here?
Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.
Chaim, don't give me this.
I respect Dan Ben Noah. He does not return the favor. He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write. I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me. I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.
In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic. These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads. But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts. I'm certainly not going to take this crap.
בס''ד
I didn't read the whole argument here but I don't see this. He is simply disagreeing with you. Can't we have vigorous and healthy arguments here between friends?
Disagreeing with me by claiming I don't believe in God?
-
You have only given me one rabbi with this perspective, and you have given me no reason to believe there is anything substantially spiritual you can take away from the idea of 2 creation accounts. The reason you believe in it is because you read the Bible through the lense of modern trends so you feel more comfortable about your so-called belief in G-d.
The phrase "day of G-d's making" is similar to saying the "day of Israel's suffering" or something in the sense that it has another meaning in contrast to specific days that are numbered. It is saying at the time that G-d made heaven and earth. It even says later in Exodus that G-d created the world in 6 days. So you are actually the one doing the distortions. Think about it, people who don't even believe in the Bible shouldn't be giving instructions on how to read it.
-
בס''ד
Guys! What is going on here?
Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.
Chaim, don't give me this.
I respect Dan Ben Noah. He does not return the favor. He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write. I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me. I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.
In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic. These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads. But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts. I'm certainly not going to take this crap.
בס''ד
I didn't read the whole argument here but I don't see this. He is simply disagreeing with you. Can't we have vigorous and healthy arguments here between friends?
Disagreeing with me by claiming I don't believe in G-d?
בס''ד
Both of you have gotten carried away here. KWRBT, you know who Dan is and how much he does for the cause.
-
בס''ד
What is your main argument here?
-
בס''ד
Guys! What is going on here?
Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.
Chaim, don't give me this.
I respect Dan Ben Noah. He does not return the favor. He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write. I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me. I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.
In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic. These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads. But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts. I'm certainly not going to take this crap.
בס''ד
I didn't read the whole argument here but I don't see this. He is simply disagreeing with you. Can't we have vigorous and healthy arguments here between friends?
Disagreeing with me by claiming I don't believe in G-d?
בס''ד
Both of you have gotten carried away here. KWRBT, you know who Dan is and how much he does for the cause.
I think/thought Dan is great but that doesn't excuse his behavior here.
He cannot dictate how people read the scripture and then claim that anyone who reads it differently from him is a heretical german bible critic.
I don't believe I was carried away until he started taking jabs at me. Maybe I'm wrong for responding in kind but I don't think this type of crap should be tolerated on the forum.
-
בס''ד
Let's argue this like friends. What is the main issue here?
-
בס''ד
Guys! What is going on here?
Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.
Chaim, don't give me this.
I respect Dan Ben Noah. He does not return the favor. He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write. I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me. I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.
In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic. These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads. But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts. I'm certainly not going to take this crap.
בס''ד
I didn't read the whole argument here but I don't see this. He is simply disagreeing with you. Can't we have vigorous and healthy arguments here between friends?
Disagreeing with me by claiming I don't believe in G-d?
בס''ד
Both of you have gotten carried away here. KWRBT, you know who Dan is and how much he does for the cause.
I think/thought Dan is great but that doesn't excuse his behavior here.
He cannot dictate how people read the scripture and then claim that anyone who reads it differently from him is a heretical german bible critic.
I don't believe I was carried away until he started taking jabs at me.
בס''ד
I think both of you have been taking jabs at each other. Can we discuss this issue in a civil manner? What's the main issue of contention here?
-
בס''ד
Let's argue this like friends. What is the main issue here?
Dan ben Noah insists that there are no differences between Bereshith chapter 1 and Bereshith chapter 2. I disagree and point out several differences. He then twists and turns and reads non-literally to explain away the differences.
I believe that the fact these differences occur are indicative of the fact that in general the maaseh bereshith are not to be understood literally. I think there is ample support for this concept.
I mentioned Rav Soloveitchik who discusses "Adam I" and "Adam II" and goes at length about man's dual role in society. This is elaborated in Lonely Man of Faith, which Dan prefers that I summarize in one sentence, which I am not going to do and have him belittle it like he has belittled the interpretation of Bereshith that differs from his.
Of course this is not the only example. The Rambam describes the days of creations as categories, not time periods. He also says that one cannot date the creation to a specific date (because that's pagan to do so). This is a complicated discussion in Moreh Nevuchim. There are many other rishonim who ask kashiyas related to the accounts of creation in Chapter 1 and chapter 2 indicating that these are valid questions to ask and one cannot simply brush them away with a wave of the hand. For this I'm accused of being a german bible critic, and of course Rav Soloveitchik isn't frum enough, and the Rambam is to rationalist, and so-and-so is too mystical, etc etc.
-
I was trying to defend the fact that Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1. I thought I was being fairly civil, but I can stop, I have to get going for tonight anyway.
Calling me an atheist is civil?
Saying I don't believe in God is civil? Saying I don't believe the Scripture is civil?
How so?
-
And ironically, one of his non-literal readings "The day of God's creating" - is similarly a non-literal reading that I apply (as does my rabbi, as do many frum Jews and I believe you said in ask JTF this week that you do as well Chaim) to the FIRST chapter of Bereshith where it says Day 1, 2nd day, third day, etc. Ie, these are not literally 24 hour periods when it says yom. And with this reading I understand the Torah as leaving open the possibility for a world billions of years old, which it is.
Dan ben noah insists that this reading is ok for Chapter 2, but to read this into Chapter 1 is heretical. This only points to the absurdity of the claim he is trying to uphold.
-
I was trying to defend the fact that Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1. I thought I was being fairly civil, but I can stop, I have to get going for tonight anyway.
Calling me an atheist is civil?
Saying I don't believe in G-d is civil? Saying I don't believe the Scripture is civil?
How so?
let our side be the mature ones in this and try to explain our position more calmly.
-
let our side
Huh?
-
בס''ד
KWRBT, Dan does not think you are an atheist. He simply feels that your views are wrong and don't make sense to him.
BTW, there is rabbinic support for both of your views. But most of Chazal believe that the story of Bereshit is symbolic and not literal. Also there is a Jewish concept that there is no time line in the Torah. Things are not literally written about in historic order, or not necessarily.
The written Torah is not a history book or a science book. It is a book to instruct mankind.
-
let our side
Huh?
the people on this forum that believe evolution happened.
-
בס''ד
BTW, there is rabbinic support for both of your views. But most of Chazal believe that the story of Bereshit is symbolic and not literal. Also there is a Jewish concept that there is no time line in the Torah. Things are not literally written about in historic order, or not necessarily.
The written Torah is not a history book or a science book. It is a book to instruct mankind.
I agree with you on this 100%.
But will Dan Ben Noah call your point "nonsense" like he refers to ideas of Rav Soloveitchik?
Will he similarly doubt that you believe in the Bible because you think the world is older than 6000 years? I hope not. I hope we can get past those kind of assumptions.
-
בס''ד
So what is the value of the Torah? We know that the instructions in it are divinely inspired because they were given to the entire Jewish people at Mount Sinai. And we know that the prophesies of the Torah are being fulfilled in our day. And we know that there are deeper meanings and codes in the Torah that could only have been divinely inspired.
But the Torah is not intended to give us a time line on events. The snake for instance is regarded by most of Chazal as the yetzer harah (the evil inclination). The recounting of what took place in the Sinai desert during the 40 years of wandering is clearly not in order. Because every word, every letter in the Torah has a deeper meaning with answers for how we should be living and for how we can redeem this world.
-
בס''ד
But KWRBT there are rabbinic sages who do believe that the world is 6000 years old. So Dan's views are not invalid.
-
בס''ד
But KWRBT there are rabbinic sages who do believe that the world is 6000 years old. So Dan's views are not invalid.
I'm not saying they are invalid, even if I think they are wrong or incorrect. I'm saying let the other side air their views and do not resort to calling them heretical just because one disagrees. That is what set me off, and I regret that I reacted to that emotionally. However, I am trying to stress that it is simply inaccurate and dishonest to label the opposing view as heretical just because one adheres to the 6000 year old world view.
Just because some do NOT view the world as 6000 years old does not mean such people should be labeled as german bible critics or worshipers of modern society, not frum enough, etc...
-
Since I regret reacting in the way that I did and I am embarrassed that I said certain things, I'm going to edit a few of my comments.
-
בס''ד
If someone says something that seems offensive, very often they do not mean to be offensive. It is just their way of expressing themselves. But in any event, we should not respond with anger especially if we know that we are speaking about a great fellow JTFer.
There have been some angry exchanges here the past few days. I have been unable to intervene because I have been very busy with other things that are happening in our movement. We should always try to be polite, patient and kind to our fellow JTFers. After all, we are all part of the same struggle.
-
בס''ד
If someone says something that seems offensive, very often they do not mean to be offensive. It is just their way of expressing themselves. But in any event, we should not respond with anger especially if we know that we are speaking about a great fellow JTFer.
There have been some angry exchanges here the past few days. I have been unable to intervene because I have been very busy with other things that are happening in our movement. We should always try to be polite, patient and kind to our fellow JTFers. After all, we are all part of the same struggle.
Amen...
I just brought up that concept of the serpent as the Yetzer Hara in a discussion this evening totally unrelated to this topic...
We should learn as much as we can from the Torah, the commentaries of the sages, and the Midrash... It does not always need to be understood literally as long as the underlying concepts are learned.
As I said before... I have no problem with the science so long as it is honest and doesn't have an agenda. Case in point is the recent Global Warming scandals. And so long as the concept of the special nature of the human race in relation to the other creatures on the planet. I believe one of the primary lessons which we must learn from Beresheit is that man is made in Hashems image. That mankind has a special soul which is unique to man, and our speech is a way of conveying parts of our soul. It is important that Hashem created the world with the power of speech. It was the ten utterances which he created the world with, according to the Wisdom of the Fathers:
Chapter 4 Mishnah 1: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682520/jewish/English-Text.htm
1. The world was created with ten utterances. What does this come to teach us? Certainly, it could have been created with a single utterance. However, this is in order to make the wicked accountable for destroying a world that was created with ten utterances, and to reward the righteous for sustaining a world that was created with ten utterances.
Another important concept is that man and women were created together, and only later separated. We all have both a masculine and feminine aspect to our souls, and we always yearn to re-unite with our other half. This is the root idea of soul mate... Which Torah calls Chava a helpmate to be opposite Adam.
-
http://creationconcepts.org/resources/RECEDING.pdf (http://creationconcepts.org/resources/RECEDING.pdf)
For Purely scientific reasons the above link describes why the moon could not have come into existence under current scientific knowledge at the time when evolutionists say the earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago.
The above article however, supports the idea that evolutionists are totally wrong and the world is only about 6000 years old (a possibility if you contend that G-d created the universe old).
However, theistic evolutionists can use the data in the above link as an example to explain why the moon is said to be created on the 4th day and not on the first day. Where days represent many millions of years.
-
Without taking sides on this debate one thing I notice is that during frustrating times name calling and belittling ensues.
And we need you guys to keep an open mind of differing opinions. The rabbis had differing opinions but still resolved their issues by agreeing to disagree with both camps being right.
We need to acknowledge each other with respect and If you disagree you simply say you disagree. Or better yet say "i see your point but I think on the other hand......"
-
http://creationconcepts.org/resources/RECEDING.pdf (http://creationconcepts.org/resources/RECEDING.pdf)
For Purely scientific reasons the above link describes why the moon could not have come into existence under current scientific knowledge at the time when evolutionists say the earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago.
The above article however, supports the idea that evolutionists are totally wrong and the world is only about 6000 years old (a possibility if you contend that G-d created the universe old).
However, theistic evolutionists can use the data in the above link as an example to explain why the moon is said to be created on the 4th day and not on the first day. Where days represent many millions of years.
The moon was formed while the solar system was still young (well, relatively speaking). There was a large, planet sized object that smashed into the proto-earth called Theia and this object both combined with the proto-earth and knocked a big chunk off. When everything settled down into stability again, there was the earth and the moon. Also to refute what the page said, the moon is receding from the earth, but it has not always done so at the same rate. When it was closer to the earth, it moved away more slowly.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/BigSplashEnglish.svg/225px-BigSplashEnglish.svg.png)
-
There are a number of theories on when and why. I wouldn't consider this as conclusive. The moon sun and earth have a special relationship that coincide with Jewish months and Jewish holidays that I find the exact positioning to be more than just a coincidence. If evolution was Gd's clever way of making man He must have had a clever way of positioning the earth moon and sun to coincide with our lives perfectly.
:http://creationconcepts.org/resources/RECEDING.pdf (http://creationconcepts.org/resources/RECEDING.pdf)
For Purely scientific reasons the above link describes why the moon could not have come into existence under current scientific knowledge at the time when evolutionists say the earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago.
The above article however, supports the idea that evolutionists are totally wrong and the world is only about 6000 years old (a possibility if you contend that G-d created the universe old).
However, theistic evolutionists can use the data in the above link as an example to explain why the moon is said to be created on the 4th day and not on the first day. Where days represent many millions of years.
The moon was formed while the solar system was still young (well, relatively speaking). There was a large, planet sized object that smashed into the proto-earth called Theia and this object both combined with the proto-earth and knocked a big chunk off. When everything settled down into stability again, there was the earth and the moon. Also to refute what the page said, the moon is receding from the earth, but it has not always done so at the same rate. When it was closer to the earth, it moved away more slowly.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/BigSplashEnglish.svg/225px-BigSplashEnglish.svg.png)
-
Sorry Muman, I would have responded earlier to this but didn't get a chance to.
the theory cannot account for the development of life from some simple beginning. It simply cannot account for the broad sweep of evolution.
This is a very good explanation of how one-celled living things came together to form multicellular organisms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=cell&part=A61
Once life is in existence, natural selection will take over. There are some hurdles though, one of them is the formation of multicellular life (not that big of one), and the other is the formation of eucaryotic aka eukaryotic cells.
You can't really directly evolve from a single celled organism to a multicellular organism like most of the plants and animals are today. This required something kind of special, basically there were groups of cells that formed colonies together. Different cells in the groups would become specialized, forming different tissues. This would have happened more than one time. This was something that could evolve into a primitive plant or animal.
There's also a big difference between bacteria cells and the types of cells that make up plants and animals. Bacteria cells are called prokaryotes and plant and animal cells are called eukaryotes. Eukaryotes have a nucleus with a membrane and also mitochondria inside the cell. It's difficult if not impossible for eukaryotes (like plant and animal cells) to directly evolve from prokaryotes (bacteria cells). This also requires something special. Basically at least two different cells had to combine to make this happen. One lived inside the other one in sort of a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship. Eventually this was something that could evolve into the plant and animal cells we know today.
When prominent biologists claim that "evolution is a fact," they are stating a half-truth that means far less than what they would like the public to believe.
It's a fact in the same way that the earth goes around the sun is a fact, and in the same way that gravity holds us on the earth is a fact. It has the scientific evidence in its favor well enough to establish it as scientific fact.
The theory of evolution -- and it is just that, a theory -- states that the development of life is a purely natural process, driven by known mechanisms.
The idea that living things are made of cells is "just a theory".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory
Yes, it's just a theory, even though you can take an onion skin and look at the cells under the microscope directly.
Surely in this context, scientific theories have to have a different meaning than what theory means to people in regular conversation. Think about it.
Here's a good explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
But this is simply not true. There is no evidence that life developed, or even could have developed, by a purely natural process.
There's lots of evidence that life diversified due to a natural process.
However, on both theoretical and experimental grounds, the broad sweep of evolution cannot be based on random mutations. On theoretical grounds, the probability is just too small for random mutations, even with the filtering of natural selections, to lead to a new species.
If you have the patience for lectures, I recommend you watch "Climbing Mount Improbable" on youtube. I don't like his attitude toward religion anymore than anyone else, but I haven't found a better explanation, and this video doesn't have anything anti-religious in it:
If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, watch 4:40 to 8:23. I think it answers your question very, very well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak
On experimental grounds, there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. This may seem surprising at first, but a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists shows that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it.
There are different types of mutations. Some of them add information, some of them reduce it. There are duplications of genetic material that can happen during cell division. These can be subsequently changed through other mutations.
One of the examples where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
That's a great example of observed evolution in the real world!
It is suggested that although significant evolution cannot occur by random mutations, it could occur by non-random mutations. Non-random here means that the environment itself influences what mutations can occur. There is extensive evidence for evolution by non-random mutations -- evidence that spans life forms from bacteria through vertebrates.
The only thing close to this I have heard of was the idea that the rate of evolution can speed up if there's a greater environmental pressure.
-
There are a number of theories on when and why. I wouldn't consider this as conclusive. The moon sun and earth have a special relationship that coincide with Jewish months and Jewish holidays that I find the exact positioning to be more than just a coincidence. If evolution was Gd's clever way of making man He must have had a clever way of positioning the earth moon and sun to coincide with our lives perfectly.
I think God guided everything to be how it is. I believe God created it all using these processes. So of course, the position of the sun and moon in relation to the earth has great significance considering that God caused them to be that way.
I don't talk about God a lot when I'm talking about science even though I hold a belief that God was always in control.
The early solar system had a lot of mini-planets colliding about, which eventually formed the planets we know now.
-
I don't believe in Evolution. God made man in the immage of himself, we did not evolve from monkeys.
-
I don't believe in Evolution. G-d made man in the immage of himself, we did not evolve from monkeys.
I also have difficulty in accepting this theory but, hey, when I look at Michelle Obama...
-
I don't believe in Evolution. G-d made man in the immage of himself, we did not evolve from monkeys.
I also have difficulty in accepting this theory but, hey, when I look at Michelle Obama...
:::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D
-
Re: "the moon is receding from the earth, but it has not always done so at the same rate. "
So in other words, what you just said is that the earth is some kind of man? ... and that the moon is the man's receding hairline?
WTF? Just where in Torah does it say any such thing!
-
Aside from the discussion becoming a little too heated, this is a very interesting and informative debate/thread.
Lots of valuable information, theories, interpretation of scripture and a great display of passion and belief in Torah.
So where does Muck come down in this debate (don't you hate people that refer to themselves in the 3rd person) ??
Muck believes the universe is billions of years old.
Muck doesn't believe that single cell bacteria or amoeba evolved into plants, fish, birds, mammals or humans.
Muck senses some sort of order, to the universe and our very being, that is intangible but nonetheless real. Is this evidence of Hashem, intelligent design, or merely a manifestation of nature and it's inherent laws ? Muck doesn't know.
Muck believes that some things can't be known, or known with absolute certainty.
Muck believes that both KWRBT and DBN and others here have an absolute faith that he lacks.
Muck believes that being an agnostic that doesn't believe in evolution, per se, is probably an oddity.
Muck believes he should thank the participants in this thread for their entertaining, informative and passionate debate.
Muck believes he shud shut up now.
-
Dan what did chaim say about belittling fellow jtfers? You can disagree without making a jtfers feel bad.
So in other words, what you just said is that the earth is some kind of man? ... and that the moon is the man's receding hairline?
No, she's using atheist theological principles to cover up the receding moon like men use ballcaps or toupees to cover up their receding hairlines. Either way it is an arena of deceit that does not work.
-
Also to refute what the page said, the moon is receding from the earth, but it has not always done so at the same rate. When it was closer to the earth, it moved away more slowly.
That's just conjecture coming from the assumption that the moon must be old. Here is more proof on the young moon:
http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/
None of that explains the fact that the moon could have moved more slowly away when it was more strongly affected by the earth's gravity, by virtue of being closer.
No, she's using atheist theological principles to cover up the receding moon like men use ballcaps or toupees to cover up their receding hairlines. Either way it is an arena of deceit that does not work.
I have no intention to deceive you or anyone else. Also I'm not an atheist. I have also never heard of atheist theological principles. I thought that was a contradiction in terms since atheism means without theism, and of course that would exclude theology. I'm sorry that you feel upset with me. I didn't want any hard feelings just because I was choosing to debate this topic. This particular topic was a hobby of mine for a long time so I feel comfortable debating it, but I don't want to do it if it's going to hurt people's feelings or make them angry toward me. I don't want to stop anyone from believing what they feel is right.
-
A lot of the translations of the bible are primarily taken out of context due to the "Christian" King James version that has been rewritten, no where is the age of the earth mentioned. I'm slightly confused why anyone would believe that evolution cannot exist because of the bible? The bible never tries to disprove evolution nor does evolution try to disprove the bible, it's comparing apples and oranges.
read up on Kebara Cave in Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebara_Cave
those bones are over 60,000 years old and belonged to neanderthals.
-
A lot of the translations of the bible are primarily taken out of context due to the "Christian" King James version that has been rewritten, no where is the age of the earth mentioned. I'm slightly confused why anyone would believe that evolution cannot exist because of the bible? The bible never tries to disprove evolution nor does evolution try to disprove the bible, it's comparing apples and oranges.
read up on Kebara Cave in Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebara_Cave
those bones are over 60,000 years old and belonged to neanderthals.
The age of man is determined by the sages. This can be determined by adding the ages of all the bible personalities since Adam...
We are currently in the year 5770 from the creation of man...
-
A lot of the translations of the bible are primarily taken out of context due to the "Christian" King James version that has been rewritten, no where is the age of the earth mentioned. I'm slightly confused why anyone would believe that evolution cannot exist because of the bible? The bible never tries to disprove evolution nor does evolution try to disprove the bible, it's comparing apples and oranges.
read up on Kebara Cave in Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebara_Cave
those bones are over 60,000 years old and belonged to neanderthals.
The age of man is determined by the sages. This can be determined by adding the ages of all the bible personalities since Adam...
We are currently in the year 5770 from the creation of man...
that doesn't mean that is the age of the earth or other living creatures though.
-
A lot of the translations of the bible are primarily taken out of context due to the "Christian" King James version that has been rewritten, no where is the age of the earth mentioned. I'm slightly confused why anyone would believe that evolution cannot exist because of the bible? The bible never tries to disprove evolution nor does evolution try to disprove the bible, it's comparing apples and oranges.
read up on Kebara Cave in Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebara_Cave
those bones are over 60,000 years old and belonged to neanderthals.
The age of man is determined by the sages. This can be determined by adding the ages of all the bible personalities since Adam...
We are currently in the year 5770 from the creation of man...
that doesn't mean that is the age of the earth or other living creatures though.
Yes indeed. I have made this point countless times, but it seems Muman is ignoring it. Whaddaya say muman?
-
I personally think even human beings are older than 6000 years. The cave paintings in Lascaux made by modern humans are much older than 6000 years old too. They're about 32,000 years old. I also think of our cousins Neanderthals as being human, even though they were a different race of human, a bit further removed from us than the races are today. They used fire, fashioned tools, wore clothes, and likely had a spoken language. There's also evidence that they were able to treat each other's injuries. They probably had a medicine man or medicine woman to do that. I think at least one neanderthal site has a flute, which would indicate they played music. Music is usually associated in ancient times with religious worship too. They also buried their dead instead of leaving them on the ground to rot.
-
This is a 9000 year old sketch from India, showing that horses were already domesticated then:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Bhimbetka1.JPG)
People have been around for a long, long time.
-
That's not horses!
Those are bedbug stains from the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City!
>:(
-
Rubystars if your 9000 year old cave painting was determined by carbon-dating it is completely unreliable, because Carbon Dating has been proven wrong too many times to make use of it.
-
Rubystars if your 9000 year old cave painting was determined by carbon-dating it is completely unreliable, because Carbon Dating has been proven wrong too many times to make use of it.
Why do you believe that? Where did you hear it?
That's not horses!
Those are bedbug stains from the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City!
>:(
Alternatively, maybe bedbugs left those stains on purpose in an attempt to share with humans their own advanced civilization, starting with the idea to domesticate horses! ;D Maybe bedbugs are really very small members of an advanced race of aliens! :::D
-
Aside from the discussion becoming a little too heated, this is a very interesting and informative debate/thread.
Lots of valuable information, theories, interpretation of scripture and a great display of passion and belief in Torah.
So where does Muck come down in this debate (don't you hate people that refer to themselves in the 3rd person) ??
Muck believes the universe is billions of years old.
Muck doesn't believe that single cell bacteria or amoeba evolved into plants, fish, birds, mammals or humans.
Muck senses some sort of order, to the universe and our very being, that is intangible but nonetheless real. Is this evidence of Hashem, intelligent design, or merely a manifestation of nature and it's inherent laws ? Muck doesn't know.
Muck believes that some things can't be known, or known with absolute certainty.
Muck believes that both KWRBT and DBN and others here have an absolute faith that he lacks.
Muck believes that being an agnostic that doesn't believe in evolution, per se, is probably an oddity.
Muck believes he should thank the participants in this thread for their entertaining, informative and passionate debate.
Muck believes he shud shut up now.
I understand and respect Muck's point of view. How can I be sure of Judaism ? The only honest answer is I cannot be sure, at least not absolutely sure. It is essentially a matter of faith.
Personally, I am very much inclined to believe in the Torah, because its prophecies are being fulfilled and because I cannot give a proper meaning to our existence and to the universe without HaShem.
But I find it extremely important that a Kahanist movement such as JTF remain open to secular minds and even to non-believers, because all it takes to support Rabbi Kahane's ideas is to care for the survival of the Jewish people, and more generally, to care for justice and historical truth.
-
You asked me for sources for why carbon dating is unreliable
I will start with 2 that I found on the internet
{note: I don't agree 100% with the 2nd article but he brings enough examples of false datings by carbon dating to be relevant to our discussion}
http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating (http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating)
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html)
I don't have the source with me but I read that in some ancient find of food jars {probably it was in a pyramid, but I won't say 100%] one food jar by carbon dating was found to be many many centuries older than the next when it was obvious from the find that both jars were put in the same place at the same time.
-
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
QUOTE>> The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years. <<UNQUOTE
This means that all the created items may fall within the accurate range of the carbon-14 dating method.
Rather the durations of the days of creation were exponential, with the will of Hashem.
-
I read the article by syyuge and thought instead of trying to answer the scientific questions raised against the dating technique, it just tried to malign the opposition that everyone who disagrees with us "is a primitive religious fundamentalist".
-
http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating (http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating)
Scientists don't date things younger than 150 years or older than about 50,000 years with carbon dating because that's the range for which that method is accurate. There's no reason at all to think the rate of decay would have changed. The only ones who claim this are young earth creationists. I've never seen a mainstream scientist that was not a creationist argue that the rate of decay was not the same always. If the method was that flawed, it would have been in their interest to expose it too.
Here's the answer I found to the other point:
"Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."
In other words, as long as cosmic rays never stopped hitting the earth in the last 50,000 years or so, then there's really no reason to think the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere was that different.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html)
"What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?"
A wildly inaccurate result, of course, because dinosaurs are much, much older than that! Different dating methods are used for different materials because particular dating methods are only accurate for certain periods of time. As for the age of dinosaurs, there is a lot of evidence that dates them millions of years ago. One of them is that they are not found in any rock layers above the Cretaceous except for avian dinosaurs. During the Tertiary, only birds were left.
I don't have the source with me but I read that in some ancient find of food jars {probably it was in a pyramid, but I won't say 100%] one food jar by carbon dating was found to be many many centuries older than the next when it was obvious from the find that both jars were put in the same place at the same time.
I don't know exactly what happened there. Maybe one of the jars had been cracked or contaminated. Maybe one of the jars had been mishandled somehow. It's really hard to know without knowing more about the story.
-
I read the article by syyuge and thought instead of trying to answer the scientific questions raised against the dating technique, it just tried to malign the opposition that everyone who disagrees with us "is a primitive religious fundamentalist".
Sorry! I never meant to hurt anyone repeat anyone. I agree with almost all the religious fundamentalists except for the muslamics in any form or content. So I wish you all to keep following the creation.
Only thing I feel is that if there is any need, then creation and the evolution shall be discussed in entirely separate topics without any mutual interference.
As I understand, I reiterate that the only commonality between the two opinions can be rather that the durations of the days of creation were exponential, with the will of Hashem.
-
The age of man is determined by the sages. This can be determined by adding the ages of all the bible personalities since Adam...
We are currently in the year 5770 from the creation of man...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is more accurate to say that according to Torah the soul of man was created 5770 years ago.
Is it not possible that before Adam there were beings that looked human, had many human characteristics, but lacked a human soul ?
Also, what does it mean to add the ages of all the bible personalities since Adam ? Is there no overlap ? Is there a continuity or contiguity amongst the 'personalities' that would lead one to believe the methodology used to derive the 5770 figure brings an accurate number ?
Some other questions I have - I believe some of the Bible 'personalities' are said to have lived extraordinarily long lives. Didn't Noah live for over 800 years ? Is there any evidence to support this ? Did the life span of humans gradually decrease since Noah until we reached today's span ?
How many years have we celebrated Rosh Hashunnah and Yom Kippur ? I can understand and easily believe that this number of years is accurate and documented. But I have a harder time believing the years before that can be precisely known. Perhaps some of the more knowledgable people here can provide some answers to these queries.
-
The age of man is determined by the sages. This can be determined by adding the ages of all the bible personalities since Adam...
We are currently in the year 5770 from the creation of man...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is more accurate to say that according to Torah the soul of man was created 5770 years ago.
Is it not possible that before Adam there were beings that looked human, had many human characteristics, but lacked a human soul ?
That is the Seforno's opinion and it can be read into other Rishonim as well. In fact, the Seforno describes the human (prior to receiving the living soul from God) as an animal
Also, what does it mean to add the ages of all the bible personalities since Adam ? Is there no overlap ? Is there a continuity or contiguity amongst the 'personalities' that would lead one to believe the methodology used to derive the 5770 figure brings an accurate number ?
From what I understand, the derivation of 5770 is no simple matter. It is a complicated calculation based on intricate traditions that have to be combined together. I think everyone agrees that is the dating of man as the Torah considers man, but still I don't think it's so clear-cut how that number is derived.
-
Re: "the Seforno describes the human (prior to receiving the living soul from G-d) as an animal "
A whole bunch of 'em survived!
I can show you where they live!
;D
-
After years of careful study, top researchers like Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Duane Gish concluded that the entire concept of man's evolution from an ape-like creature is a phantasm, and that all the once-sensationalised "missing-links" such as Cro-Magnon Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, Java Man, Orce Man, Fontechevade Man, Wadjak Man, Grimaldi Man, Olduvai Man, Foxhall Man, Nutcracker Man, Swanscombe Man, Leaky's 1470 Man, Heidelberg Man, Galley Hill Man, Piltdown Man etc.etc., were either 100% ape, 100% homo sapiens or 100% hoax!
According to Jewish tradition (Sanhedrin 109) the punishment of one-third of the builders of the Tower of Babel was their miraculous transformation into apes: devolution not evolution!
-
wonga66: "According to Jewish tradition (Sanhedrin 109) the punishment of one-third of the builders of the Tower of Babel was their miraculous transformation into apes: devolution not evolution! "
Well ... that's only because they neglected to pay their Union dues! :teach:
-
Why do you consider "devolution" theologically acceptable, but evolution is problematic to you? This citation of the Talmud just underlies the lack of logic in your position. If chazal say it in one matter, it's deemed acceptable to you, but if they say it in another matter which you think contradicts literal verses, you deem it heresy.
-
Re: "the Seforno describes the human (prior to receiving the living soul from G-d) as an animal "
A whole bunch of 'em survived!
I can show you where they live!
;D
I think I can guess.